Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01882/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01882-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17-CV-1882-JAH(WVG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TUNGSTEN HEAVY POWDER AND 

PARTS, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

KHEM PRECISION MACHINING, 

LLC, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 17-CV-1882-JAH(WVG)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 

TUNGSTEN HEAVY POWDER 

AND PARTS, INC.’S EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR EXPEDITED 

DISCOVERY 

[ECF No. 5.] 

Pursuant to Rule 26(d), plaintiff Tungsten Heavy Powder and Parts, Inc. 

(“Tungsten”) applies ex parte for an Order permitting limited expedited discovery. 

(ECF No. 5.) An untimely opposition was filed on November 10, 2017. (ECF No. 8.)1

Having reviewed the papers and arguments therein, Tungsten’s Application is 

GRANTED. 

 

1

 Defendant’s motion to shorten time to file the untimely opposition is GRANTED. 

(ECF No. 8.) Although defense counsel did not make his appearance in this case until 

after the ex parte motion was filed, Plaintiff mail-served the motion on defense 

counsel upon filing. Although mailing time would not have allowed Defendant 

sufficient time to receive the motion and prepare a response, the Court notes it took 

Defendant more than two weeks to do so. Nonetheless, the Court gives Defendant the 

benefit of the doubt in this instance. In the future, however, the Court will expect strict 

compliance with all deadlines. 

Case 3:17-cv-01882-JAH-WVG Document 10 Filed 11/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 -1- 17-CV-01882-JAH(WVG

I. BACKGROUND 

 In July 2015, defendant Khem Precisions Machining, LLC (“Khem”), a 

machining company in Richmond, Virginia, ordered a large number of tungsten buffer 

weights from Tungsten. (Sery Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 5-3.) Khem accepted the buffer 

weights and ultimately used them to manufacture finished assemblies for its end 

customer. (Id. at ¶ 6.) To date, Khem has allegedly refused to pay all amounts invoiced 

for the buffer weights and threatened that it will sell or dispose of its assets to prevent 

Tungsten from obtaining recovery through litigation. (Id. at ¶ 7-9.) 

 On September 14, 2017, Tungsten filed a Complaint and Summons against 

Khem for breach of contract. (See ECF No. 1.) Tungsten believes Khem is actively 

taking steps to dispose of assets to frustrate recovery in this action and requests 

permission for expedited discovery to gather information necessary to decide whether 

to seek preliminary injunctive relief. (Yun Decl. ¶ 5-6, ECF No. 5-4.) 

 On October 25, 2017, Tungsten filed a motion for expedited discovery 

requesting: (1) Khem’s financial accounting records, including financial reports, 

profit and loss statements, and balance sheets, since August 14, 2015; (2) all 

documents related to any effort by Khem to obtain bankruptcy protection; (3) all 

documents related to Khem’s efforts to sell, alienate, or otherwise dispose of any of 

Khem’s assets; (4) copies of Khem’s document retention policy; and (5) the 

deposition of a Khem designee sufficiently knowledgeable about topics related to (1)-

(4). (Ex. A to Appl. 7:3-13, 12:8-18, ECF No. 5-2.) Tungsten also seeks to depose a 

person motion knowledgeable about these documents and topics. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d), discovery generally does not 

commence until parties to an action meet and confer as prescribed by Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 26(f), unless allowed by court order or agreement of the parties. A 

court may permit early discovery if the requesting party demonstrates good cause. 

Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). 

Case 3:17-cv-01882-JAH-WVG Document 10 Filed 11/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 -2- 17-CV-01882-JAH(WVG

“Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration 

of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Id.

In determining whether good cause justifies expedited discovery, courts commonly 

consider the following factors: “(1) whether a preliminary injunction is pending; 

(2) the breadth of the discovery requests; (3) the purpose for requesting the expedited 

discovery; (4) the burden on the defendants to comply with the requests; and (5) how 

far in advance of the typical discovery process the request was made.” Am. LegalNet., 

Inc. v. Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1067 (C.D. Cal. 2009); Apple Inc. v. Samsung 

Elecs. Co., Ltd., 768 F. Supp. 2d 1040, 1044 (N.D. Cal. 2011). 

III. DISCUSSION 

The Court finds that the balance of factors favors Tungsten. First, there is no 

motion for preliminary injunction pending, which weighs against Tungsten. However, 

Tungsten has a need to determine whether injunctive relief is necessary to ensure 

Khem does not improperly dispose of its assets. See Interserve, Inc. v. Fusion Garage 

PTE, Ltd., No. C09-5812-JQ(PVT), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6395, at *7, 2010 WL 

143665, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2010) (“Expedited discovery will allow plaintiff to 

determine whether to seek an early injunction.”). Preliminary injunctions have been 

granted in this District in such circumstances. See, e.g., Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. 

Nagby, No. 16-CV-3038-BTM(WVG), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165582, 2017 WL 

4432453 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2017). Second, the discovery requested is limited to only 

one deposition and information related to any efforts by Khem to dispose of assets. 

Third, the deposition and documents sought are narrowly tailored to determining 

whether Khem has or plans to dispose of assets to prevent any recovery in this 

litigation. Fourth, the burden on Khem is relatively minimal. Tungsten requests a 

single deposition and documents that are readily obtainable and, as Khem 

acknowledges, would have to be produced in the normal course of the litigation. Any 

burden on Khem is outweighed by the interests of justice. Fifth, discovery in the 

normal course will commence in the next few months given that Khem has filed an 

Case 3:17-cv-01882-JAH-WVG Document 10 Filed 11/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 -3- 17-CV-01882-JAH(WVG

Answer and a combined Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management Conference 

has been scheduled. Thus, while the instant request for discovery is early, it is not 

extraordinarily so. This factor favors neither party. 

The Court disagrees Khem would be prejudiced by early discovery. As Khem 

notes, the requested discovery is fair game and will come forth during the course of 

discovery later in the case. Given this acknowledgement, it is unclear how Khem will 

suffer prejudice if inevitable discovery is taken early. Khem certainly has not

specifically set forth how it would be prejudiced. The Court also disagrees that the 

nature of Tungsten’s requests will open every case to expedited discovery motions. 

What sets this case apart is the purported threat that Khem will take steps to thwart 

Plaintiff’s efforts to collect money it is owed. Not every case involves such 

circumstances. And although Khem characterizes this representation as a “bald 

assertion,” it was made in a sworn declaration filed under the penalty of perjury and 

Rule 11 sanctions. Such declarations have evidentiary value. Aside from calling this 

representation a bald assertion, Khem has not countered it with a declaration or other 

evidence. 

In sum, the Court finds Tungsten has shown good cause for early discovery. 

The information sought through the proposed deposition and document production is 

relevant as to any future request for preliminary injunctive relief and is likely to assist 

the Court in proceeding with the litigation. However, the Court finds the deposition 

should be limited in duration. The Court determines that four hours should be 

sufficient for Tungsten to inquire about any efforts by Khem to dispose of assets. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties comply with the following

expedited discovery: 

1. Defendant Khem is ordered to produce a witness to testify on its behalf 

pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the topics 

Case 3:17-cv-01882-JAH-WVG Document 10 Filed 11/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 -4- 17-CV-01882-JAH(WVG

identified in Exhibit A to Tungsten’s Ex Parte Application within three weeks of the 

date of this Order. Deposition shall be limited to four hours. 

2. Khem is ordered to produce documents responsive to the categories set 

forth in Exhibit A to the Ex Parte Application for Limited Expedited Discovery 

within two weeks of the date of this Order. 

3. Nothing in this Order is intended to limit the scope of discovery taken 

by Tungsten during the discovery period as set forth in a Scheduling Order to be 

entered following the Rule 26 conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 14, 2017 

Case 3:17-cv-01882-JAH-WVG Document 10 Filed 11/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5