Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00832/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00832-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOBELBIZ, INC., a Delaware

corporation,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv0832 W (JLB)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR EXPEDITED

DISCOVERY 

[ECF NO. 6]

vs.

JEFF L. WESSON, an individual; and

DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Expedited

Discovery. (ECF No. 6.) For the reasons outlined below, Plaintiff’s motion is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

BACKGROUND

On April 8, 2014, Plaintiff NobelBiz filed a complaint for: (1) Violation of

Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; (2) Misappropriate of Trade Secrets; and

(3) Breach of Contract. (ECF No. 1.) The complaint alleges that Defendant

Wesson, a former employee of NobelBiz, unlawfully accessed a computer

belonging to NobelBiz and misappropriated trade secrets and other protectable

confidential business information. It is further alleged that Wesson wrongfully

//

- 1 - 14cv0832

Case 3:14-cv-00832-W-JLB Document 12 Filed 04/18/14 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

disclosed the confidential information and then attempted to conceal his access and

disclosure by destroying evidence. 

NobelBiz filed its motion for expedited discovery on April 10, 2014. (ECF

No. 6.) NobelBiz asserts that it need the expedited discovery to develop the

evidentiary record for an imminent request for a preliminary injunction or temporary

restraining order. (ECF No. 6.) Wesson filed a response in opposition on April 14,

2014. (ECF No. 7.) No answer has been filed. 

A telephonic status conference regarding Plaintiff’s motion for expedited

discovery was held before Judge Burkhardt on April 17, 2014 at 4:00 P.M. Lee

Brenner appeared on behalf of Plaintiff NobelBiz. Mark Konkel, whose pro hac

vice application was pending at the time, was present on the call but did not

participate. Paul Ultimo appeared on behalf of Defendant Wesson. 

DISCUSSION

Discovery is generally not permitted without a court order before the parties

have conferred pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(d)(1). Courts in the Ninth Circuit generally grant requests for expedited

discovery when the moving party shows good cause. Semitool, Inc. V. Tokyo Elec. 

Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275–76 (N.D. Cal. 2002). 

“‘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.’ [Citation omitted.] In determining whether good

cause justifies expedited discovery, courts commonly consider factors

including:(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 [party opposing expedited discovery] to

comply with the requests; and (5) how far in advance of the typical

discovery process the request was made.” 

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 2011 WL 1938154, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

2011). 

Because Wesson’s time to file an answer has not yet expired, the Court has

not set a Rule 26(f) conference. As a result, NobelBiz’s request is for expedited

discovery and therefore NobelBiz must make a showing of good cause. 

- 2 - 14cv0832

Case 3:14-cv-00832-W-JLB Document 12 Filed 04/18/14 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

Based on the factors discussed below, the Court finds that NobelBiz has

demonstrated good cause for limited expedited discovery. While NobelBiz has not

yet filed a motion for preliminary injunction, courts have found that expedited

discovery may be justified to allow a plaintiff to determine whether to seek an early

injunction. Interserve, Inc. v. Fusion Garage PTE, Ltd., 2010 WL 143665, at *2

(N.D. Cal. 2010) (“Expedited discovery will allow plaintiff to determine whether to

seek an early injunction.”). 

Although the Court expresses no opinion on the merits of NobelBiz’s claims,

the Court notes that NobelBiz has proffered facts that provide a reasonable basis to

believe that Defendant accessed, subsequent to his resignation, a laptop computer

and a number of confidential reports and files belonging to NobelBiz. This proffer

tends to support NobelBiz’s request for expedited discovery.

A number of additional considerations also support NobelBiz’s request. 

First, the expedited discovery NobelBiz requests is directly relevant to its

misappropriation claim. Second, expedited discovery would allow the Court to

address any request for preliminary injunctive relief at the outset of the case,

thereby providing a measure of clarity to the parties early in the proceeding and

facilitating effective case management. Finally, the discovery requests - as limited

by this order - are appropriately restrained in breadth and scope and compliance by

Wesson would not be unduly burdensome. Each of these factors weighs in favor of

NobelBiz’s request. See Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276–77 (indicating that relevance

of the discovery requested and the facilitation of case management support a request

for expedited discovery); Apple, 208 F.R.D. 2011 WL 1938154, at *3 (weighing the

breadth of the request and the burden on the producing party). 

ORDER

While NobelBiz had shown good cause for limited expedited discovery, such

good cause does not warrant granting the motion in full. Accordingly, the Court

modifies NobelBiz’s requests as set out below. 

- 3 - 14cv0832

Case 3:14-cv-00832-W-JLB Document 12 Filed 04/18/14 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

A. Requests Granted In Full

Wesson is ORDERED to respond, on or before May 2, 2014, to the following

requests for production: Request for Production No. 2; Request for Production No.

4; Request for Production No. 5; Request for Production No. 6; and Request for

Production No. 7. (ECF No. 6, Konkel Decl., Ex. A.)

Wesson is ORDERED to appear for deposition on or before May 20, 2014,

unless that date is otherwise extended by agreement of the parties, with notice to the

Court. 

Wesson is ORDERED to serve written responses, on or before April 25,

2014, to the following interrogatories: Interrogatory No. 1; Interrogatory No. 3;

and Interrogatory No. 4. (ECF No. 6, Konkel Decl., Ex. B.)

Plaintiff’s request to serve a subpoena Broadband Dynamics, a third party, is

GRANTED as to the request for production. (ECF No. 6, Konkel Decl., Ex. C.) 

B. Request Granted In Part

Wesson is ORDERED to respond, on or before May 2, 2014, to Production

Request No. 1 containing the following limitation:

All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to emails, text messages,

instant messages, memoranda, reports, other correspondence and files

CONCERNING DOCUMENTS originating in, or belonging to,

NOBELBIZ, including but not limited to DOCUMENTS entitled “Master

Account List,” “Nobel Sales Process,” “Account Management Folder,”

“Account List,” and “2013 Projection Master.”

(ECF No. 6, Konkel Decl., Ex. A.) 

Wesson is ORDERED to respond, on or before May 2, 2014, to Production

Request No. 3 containing the following limitation:

All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to emails, text messages,

instant messages, memoranda and other correspondence transmitted

during the period January 1, 2013 to the present between you and any

PERSON (including but not limited to BROADBAND or Ray Pollum)

concerning DOCUMENTS originating in, or belonging to, NOBELBIZ.

(ECF No. 6, Konkel Decl., Ex. A.)

//

//

- 4 - 14cv0832

Case 3:14-cv-00832-W-JLB Document 12 Filed 04/18/14 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

C. Requests Denied 

The motion for expedited discovery is DENIED as to the following:

(1) Request for Production No. 8. (ECF No. 6, Konkel Decl., Ex. A.)

(2) Interrogatory No. 2. (ECF No. 6, Konkel Decl., Ex. B.)

(3) Plaintiff’s request to depose Broadband Dynamics, a third party. (ECF

No. 6, Konkel Decl., Ex. C.) 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Discovery is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 18, 2014

JILL L. BURKHARDT

United States Magistrate Judge

- 5 - 14cv0832

Case 3:14-cv-00832-W-JLB Document 12 Filed 04/18/14 Page 5 of 5