Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-07517/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-07517-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:44 Trademark Infringement

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEXANDRIA REAL ESTATE 

EQUITIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUNLABS (UK) LIMITED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-07517-LHK (SVK)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL

Re: Dkt. No. 48

Before the Court is the Parties’ May 23, 2019 joint discovery letter in which Plaintiff 

Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendants RUNLABS (UK) 

Limited (“RUNLABS UK”), RUNLABS (Ireland) Limited (“RUNLABS Ireland”) and Steven 

Marcus (“Marcus”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to respond to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery 

requests. ECF 48. On May 1, 2019, the Honorable Lucy H. Koh dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint 

without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. ECF 47. Judge Koh granted Plaintiff until

May 30, 2019, to file an amended complaint. Id. at 20. In light of Judge Koh’s order, the Court 

ordered Plaintiff to select no more than ten discovery requests narrowly tailored to the issue of 

specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants. ECF 49. Plaintiff submitted those requests, and 

the Court held a hearing on May 28, 2019.

Pursuant to the Parties’ meet and confer efforts, the Parties’ arguments and the reasons 

stated on the record at the May 28, 2019 hearing, the Court ORDERS as follows.

////

////

////

Case 5:18-cv-07517-LHK Document 52 Filed 05/28/19 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

With the exception of Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 12, all three Defendants—Defendants 

RUNLABS UK, RUNLABS Ireland and Marcus—shall respond to the following discovery 

requests1by June 6, 2019: 

• Interrogatory No. 1 – “IDENTIFY all persons in the United States to whom YOU have 

transmitted or caused to be transmitted, the PROMOTIONAL DECK.”

• Interrogatory No. 2 – “IDENTIFY all persons in the United States to whom YOU have 

marketed, advertised or promoted YOUR services related to RUNLABS UK and 

RUNLABS Ireland within the last three (3) years.”

• Interrogatory No. 142– “IDENTIFY all agreements YOU have entered into REGARDING 

YOUR providing of services related to RUNLABS UK and RUNLABS Ireland in 

California within the last three (3) years.”

• Request for Production No. 1 – “ALL COMMUNICATIONS with anyone in the United 

States REGARDING YOUR PROMOTIONAL DECK.”

• Request for Production No. 36 – “ALL official documents of incorporation, press releases 

or marketing materials CONCERNING YOUR contention that ‘RUNLABS has no 

operations in the United States.’” 

In addition to the requests above, the Court ordered that Defendant Marcus shall also 

respond to the following request by June 6, 2019:

• Interrogatory No. 12 – “Describe in detail every time YOU have travelled to the United 

States for business since 2018, including but not limited to the dates of travel, reason for 

travel and location of travel.” 

////

////

////

 

1 The Court adopted the following discovery request numbers based on the numbers that Plaintiff 

provided to the Court. Counsel is free to renumber these requests consecutively. 

2 Plaintiff submitted this request as its Request for Production No. 5; however, the Court finds that 

it is more properly served as an interrogatory. 

Case 5:18-cv-07517-LHK Document 52 Filed 05/28/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

As noted above, by June 6, 2019, Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s discovery 

requests as modified by the Court. The Parties are preparing a stipulation for Judge Koh’s 

consideration requesting relief from the May 30, 2019 deadline to file an amended complaint. 

Finally, at the hearing, the Parties noted that they intend to enter into and file the District’s model 

protective order. The Court informed the Parties that once they sign the protective order, the terms 

of the protective order are effective, even if the Court has not yet approved and entered it. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 28, 2019

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-07517-LHK Document 52 Filed 05/28/19 Page 3 of 3