Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07480/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07480-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright 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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

VOODOO SAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAYGAMES LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-07480-BLF 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT 

JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

[Re: ECF 29]

For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing on April 16, 2020, and discussed below, 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery (ECF 29) is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff Voodoo SAS, a French mobile game app developer, sues Defendant SayGames 

LLC, a Belarusian mobile game app developer, for copyright infringement and related claims

arising out of SayGames’ alleged copying of Voodoo’s mobile game app Shape Shifter 3D. See

Compl., ECF 1. Voodoo alleges that SayGames’ mobile game app Jelly Shift is “a clone of Shape 

Shifter 3D that incorporates Shape Shifter 3D’s protectable and distinctive elements.” Compl. ¶ 

2. SayGames has responded by moving to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)6), for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, 

respectively. See Motion to Dismiss, ECF 22. 

After the motion to dismiss was filed, the parties submitted a stipulated request to allow 

Voodoo to file a motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery prior to completion of 

briefing on the motion to dismiss. See Stipulation, ECF 27. The Court approved the stipulation 

with minor modifications. See Order Addressing the Parties’ Joint Stipulation, ECF 28. Voodoo’s 

present motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery thereafter was filed and briefed. See

Case 5:19-cv-07480-BLF Document 38 Filed 04/16/20 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

Motion for Leave, ECF 29; Opposition, ECF 30; Reply, ECF 31; Discovery Plan, ECF 34; 

Response to Discovery Plan, ECF 36. As discussed at the hearing, both the parties and the Court 

expected that addressing jurisdictional discovery issues before litigating the motion to dismiss 

would be most efficient. However, this has turned out not to be the case.

A district court has “broad discretion” to permit or deny discovery to aid in determining 

whether it has personal jurisdiction. Butcher’s Union Local No. 498 v. SDC Investment, Inc., 788 

F.2d 535, 540 (9th Cir.1986) (trial court has “broad discretion to permit or deny discovery”); Data 

Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 n.1 (9th Cir.1977) (“A court may permit 

discovery to aid in determining whether it has in personam jurisdiction.”). “Discovery may be 

appropriately granted where pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted 

or where a more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary.” Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 

1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Voodoo argues that jurisdictional discovery is warranted on both grounds. First, Voodoo 

contends that the existence of controverted facts is established by the declaration of SayGames’ 

Chief Operating Officer, Dzianis Vaihanski, offered in support of SayGames’ motion to dismiss. 

At the hearing, the Court questioned whether Mr. Vaihanski’s declaration controverts any facts 

alleged in the complaint or contains any facts relevant to specific jurisdiction rather than general 

jurisdiction. The Court indicated that it did not understand Voodoo to be asserting general 

jurisdiction. Voodoo’s counsel responded that he expected that Voodoo’s brief in opposition to 

the motion to dismiss would focus on specific jurisdiction, but that he was not prepared to waive 

the assertion of general jurisdiction. Consequently, it is unclear at this time whether Mr. 

Vaihanski’s declaration creates controverted facts that would necessitate jurisdictional discovery. 

With respect to Voodoo’s argument that discovery is necessary to a more satisfactory showing of 

jurisdictional facts, the Court finds it difficult to evaluate that argument without having the benefit 

of the parties’ briefing on certain legal issues raised in the motion to dismiss. Even if the Court 

were persuaded that some jurisdictional discovery is warranted, the scope of the discovery 

proposed by Voodoo appears too broad, at least on the present record.

After discussing these issues with the parties at the hearing, the Court concludes that the 

Case 5:19-cv-07480-BLF Document 38 Filed 04/16/20 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

most sensible course is to deny Voodoo’s present motion without prejudice to Voodoo’s ability to 

argue the necessity for jurisdictional discovery in the context of its opposition to SayGames’ 

motion to dismiss. While the Court appreciates the parties’ goal of efficiency in raising the 

discovery issues in advance of the motion to dismiss, in this particular case it appears that 

consideration of Voodoo’s request for discovery in conjunction with SayGames’ motion to 

dismiss better will allow the Court to address the parties’ arguments in an orderly fashion.

ORDER

Voodoo’s motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE.

This order terminates ECF 29. 

Dated: April 16, 2020

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-07480-BLF Document 38 Filed 04/16/20 Page 3 of 3