Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-01895/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-01895-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(b) Civil Action to Protect Trade Secrets

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CSPC DOPHEN CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZHIXIANG HU,

Defendant.

No. 2:17-cv-1895 MCE DB PS

ORDER

Defendant is proceeding in this action pro se. (ECF No. 68.) Accordingly, this action has 

been referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). 

Noticed for hearing before the undersigned on March 13, 2020, is counter-defendant 

CSPC Pharmaceutical Group Limited’s motion to dismiss second amended counterclaims. (ECF 

No. 236.) The undersigned finds the matter appropriate for submission on the record and, 

therefore, the March 13, 2020 hearing is vacated. 

Also noticed for hearing before the undersigned on March 13, 2020, are plaintiff CSPC 

Dophen Corporation’s (“CSPC”) motion to compel defendant to answer deposition questions,

plaintiff CSPC’s motion to compel discovery responses to plaintiff’s second, fourth, fifth, and 

sixth set of requests for production, defendant Sean Hu’s motion to enforce subpoenas, defendant 

Hu’s motion to compel discovery responses from plaintiff, and plaintiff CSPC’s motion to 

compel responses to plaintiff’s third set of requests for production. (ECF Nos. 237, 238, 242,

Case 2:17-cv-01895-DAD-SCR Document 260 Filed 03/10/20 Page 1 of 3
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

243, 247.) In connection with these filings plaintiff has also filed two requests to seal. (ECF 

Nos. 251 & 253.) These motions are denied for several reasons. 

First, discovery in this action must be completed by March 13, 2020. (ECF No. 217 at 

11.) “The word ‘completed’ means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all 

depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by 

appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been 

complied with.” (ECF No. 76 at 2.) In this regard, there is not sufficient time remaining to hear 

the parties’ motions, issue orders, and for those orders to be complied with prior to the close of 

discovery. 

Second, the undersigned’s Standard Information explains that parties must meet and 

confer prior to filing a discovery motion and “must again confer in person or via telephone or 

video conferencing” prior to the filing of the joint statement. See

http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/united-states-magistratejudge-deborah-barnes-db. Here, the parties’ joint statements reflect a single meet and confer 

effort. (ECF No. 252 at 2; ECF No. 254 at 2; ECF No. 255 at 2; ECF No. 256 at 2; ECF No. 257 

at 3.) Almost all of these meet and confer meetings occurred on January 31, 2020—over a month 

prior to the filing of the joint statement. (ECF No. 252 at 2; ECF No. 254 at 2; ECF No. 255 at 2;

ECF No. 257 at 3.) 

Third, the undersigned’s Standard Information states that joint statements filed before the 

undersigned shall not exceed twenty-five pages, excluding exhibits.

1

 See

http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/united-states-magistratejudge-deborah-barnes-db. Here, two joint statements explicitly violate the undersigned’s page 

limitation. (ECF Nos. 254, 257.) Moreover, the spirit of the page limitation is to force the parties 

to narrow their disputes, focus their arguments, and to prevent the parties from overburdening the 

court with numerous and voluminous discovery disputes. Filing multiple joint statements to 

avoid the twenty-five-page limitation violates the spirit of the limitation.

1 The parties are advised that title pages, tables of contents, tables of citations, signature pages, 

etc., all count toward the twenty-five-page limit. 

Case 2:17-cv-01895-DAD-SCR Document 260 Filed 03/10/20 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. CSPC Pharmaceutical Group Limited’s January 21, 2020 motion to dismiss the second 

amended counterclaims, (ECF No. 236), is taken under submission and the March 13, 2020 

hearing vacated;

2. Plaintiff CSPC Dophen Corporation’s January 21, 2020 motion to compel, (ECF No. 

237), is denied without prejudice to renewal and the March 13, 2020 hearing vacated;

3. Plaintiff CSPC Dophen Corporation’s January 21, 2020 motion to compel, (ECF No. 

238) is denied without prejudice to renewal and the March 13, 2020 hearing vacated; 

4. Defendant Sean Hu’s January 31, 2020 motion to enforce subpoenas, (ECF No. 242), 

is denied without prejudice to renewal and the March 13, 2020 hearing vacated;

5. Defendant Sean Hu’s January 31, 2020 motion to compel, (ECF No. 243), is denied 

without prejudice to renewal and the March 13, 202 hearing vacated; 

6. Plaintiff CSPC Dophen Corporation’s February 21, 2020 motion to compel (ECF No. 

247), is denied without prejudice to renewal and the March 13, 2020 hearing vacated; and

7. Plaintiff CSPC Dophen Corporation’s March 6, 2020 requests to seal (ECF Nos. 251 & 

253) are denied without prejudice to renewal.

Dated: March 9, 2020

DLB:6

DB\orders\orders.pro se\cspc1895.mtc.ut.ord

Case 2:17-cv-01895-DAD-SCR Document 260 Filed 03/10/20 Page 3 of 3