Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02327/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02327-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Trademark Infringement

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

INTUIT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

H&R BLOCK EASTERN ENTERPRISES,

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-2327 RMW (PVT)

FURTHER ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES

TO DISCOVERY

Pursuant to this court’s prior order, on August 23, 2006, the parties filed supplemental briefs

setting forth their respective proposals for a deadline for Defendants to supplement their responses

and complete the document production ordered by this court.1 Defendants, in addition to setting

forth a proposed production schedule, have also requested restriction on the scope of the discovery.

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ request to further limit the scope of discovery

is GRANTED IN PART. 

Interrogatory No. 1 is limited to the past two years, and Defendants need only make inquiry

of current employees (with the exception of subpart E, for which they should make a reasonable

inquiry of related H&R Block entities). In light of Defendants’ contention that they have insufficient

Case 5:06-cv-02327-RMW Document 102 Filed 08/25/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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 Nothing in Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001), cited by Defendants,

suggests that the automatic provisions of Rule 26(d) do not apply to jurisdictional discovery. In that

case, the parties had conducted substantial jurisdictional discovery before a motion to dismiss, and the

court merely found that the Plaintiff had not shown that any additional jurisdictional discovery was

warranted before the court ruled on the motion to dismiss.

ORDER, page 2

contacts with California to warrant jurisdiction, the burden of identifying any contacts they have had

with California should be minimal.

Document Request Nos. 1 and 3 are limited to the past two years, and the search is limited to

Defendants’ current employees.

All other discovery requests at issue are limited to the past two years.

The foregoing further limitations are warranted in light of the showing of burden Defendants

have now made, taking into consideration the nature of the claims and defenses at issue in this

action. See, FED.R.CIV.PRO 26(b)(2)(iii). This court’s order of August 9, 2006 expressly noted that

Defendants had asserted objections other than to the scope of the jurisdictional discovery, and set a

briefing procedure designed to allow Defendants to support those other objections. Yet Defendants

failed to provide the court with any specific showing of burden, such as the fact that approximately

80,000 current and mostly former employees would need to be contacted. Had Defendants made a

proper showing of burden in the briefing on the motion to compel, the court would have been better

equipped to order appropriate limitations on the discovery. While Defendants’ failure to timely

make the showing of burden would be grounds to find the objection was waived (See e.g., In re ATM

Fee Antitrust Litigation, 233 F.R.D. 542, 545 (N.D.Cal.2005)), the court finds the ends of justice

will be best served by taking Defendants’ untimely showing of burden into consideration. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent Defendants are requesting this court to

reconsider its order that the scope of jurisdictional discovery includes both general and specific

jurisdiction, that request is DENIED. As this court previously noted, nothing in Judge Whyte’s order

purports to limit the scope of discovery that was already open. Motions to dismiss are often heard

before discovery opens, in which cases courts are called upon to determine whether to allow early

discovery on the issue of jurisdiction, and the scope of any such early discovery. It does not appear

from the record herein that either party brought to Judge Whyte’s attention the fact that discovery

was already open by virtue of the automatic provisions of Rule 26(d).2 And as this court pointed out,

Case 5:06-cv-02327-RMW Document 102 Filed 08/25/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER, page 3

Defendants never sought any protective order limiting the scope of discovery, and Judge Whyte’s

order did not purport to issue any such protective order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant HRB Royalty, Inc. shall complete its

supplemental responses and production by September 15, 2006, and Defendants H&R Block

Associates, Inc. and H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc. shall complete their supplemental

responses and production by September 22, 2006.

Dated: 8/25/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-02327-RMW Document 102 Filed 08/25/06 Page 3 of 3