Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01902/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01902-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

United States District Court

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

QUIA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MATTEL, INC. and FISHER-PRICE, INC.,

Defendants. /

No. C10-01902 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT

EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

[Re: Docket No. 17]

Plaintiff Quia Corporation (“Quia”) claims that it is the registrant and owner of the

federally registered trademark “IXL,” reportedly “used in commerce for online educational

services in the fields of math, science, and language development for students in the preelementary stages of development through the sixth grade and beyond.” (Docket No. 1,

Verified Complaint at pp. 1-2). Quia alleges trademark infringement as to the new Fisher-Price

iXL product soon to be released by defendants Mattel, Inc. (“Mattel”) and Fisher-Price, Inc.,

Mattel’s wholly-owned subsidiary. Quia has filed a motion seeking an immediate temporary

restraining order and, then, a preliminary injunction. The motion for preliminary injunction

reportedly has been set for a July 9, 2010 hearing before Judge Fogel.

Defendants now move this court for leave to conduct expedited discovery in connection

with Quia’s preliminary injunction motion. Plaintiff opposes the discovery motion. The matter 

*E-FILED 05-27-2010*

Case 5:10-cv-01902-JF Document 34 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

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

was heard, on an expedited basis, on May 27, 2010. Upon consideration of the moving and

responding papers, as well as the arguments of counsel, this court grants the motion in part and

denies it in part.

A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), unless authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by

stipulation, or by court order. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(d)(1). The court applies a good cause standard

in determining whether expedited discovery is warranted, balancing the benefit to the

requesting party against the possible prejudice or hardship on the responding party. See

Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 274 (N.D. Cal. 2002).

“‘The good cause standard may be satisfied where a party seeks a preliminary

injunction.’” American Legalnet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F. Supp.2d 1063, 1066 (C.D. Cal., 2009)

(quoting Qwest Communications Int’l, Inc. v. WorldQuest Networks, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 418, 419

(D. Colo. 2003)). “But expedited discovery is not automatically granted merely because a party

seeks a preliminary injunction.” Id. Rather, in deciding whether to grant a request for

expedited discovery in connection with a preliminary injunction hearing, a court examines the

reasonableness of the request in light of all the surrounding circumstances. Id. at 1067. Among

the factors commonly considered in determining the reasonableness of expedited discovery are: 

(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 responding party in

complying with the request; and (5) how far in advance of the typical discovery process the

request was made. Id.; Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. Washington

Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 234 F.R.D. 4, 6 (D. D.C. 2006). “[I]n every case, the

court has the discretion, in the interests of justice, to prevent excessive or burdensome

discovery.’” American Legalnet, Inc., 673 F. Supp.2d at 1067 (quoting Qwest Communications

Int’l, Inc., 213 F.R.D. at 419).

Here, defendants seek leave to take two depositions, including a deposition of plaintiff’s

President and CEO, Paul Mishkin. They also wish to propound seven interrogatories and ten

requests for production, which seek information pertaining or relating to a broad array of topics,

Case 5:10-cv-01902-JF Document 34 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

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

3

including (a) plaintiff’s intent in selecting the “IXL” mark, (b) Quia’s advertising and marketing

channels, as well as past, present and future marketing strategies, (c) Quia’s revenues and sales,

and (d) a breakdown of Quia’s subscribers. Many of these requests, as drafted, appear to seek

full-blown merits discovery that this court is not prepared to order at this juncture and on an

abbreviated schedule. Nevertheless, Quia acknowledges that defendants’ proposed discovery

may pertain in some fashion to the so-called “controlling troika” in the Sleekcraft analysis. See

Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. v. Quintana, 654 F. Supp.2d 1024, 1031 (N.D. Cal. 2009)

(quoting GoTo.com, Inc. v .Walt Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 1205 (9th Cir. 2000); see also

AMF v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979). This court is not in a

particularly good position to parse through each request to try to decide what may be fair game

now and what is not. The parties are certainly in a better position to reach agreement on that if

they choose to try.

Accordingly, after weighing competing legitimate interests and possible prejudice, and

having considered the record before the court in view of the circumstances presented, this court

finds that defendants’ motion should be granted in part and denied in part as follows:

1. Defendants may depose Paul Mishkin and Yoram Wind, Ph.D about the

declarations (and appended exhibits) they submitted in support of Quia’s motion for preliminary

injunction. Each deposition shall (a) be limited to 3.5 hours; (b) occur at a time, place and

location to be agreed upon by the parties, the deponents, and their counsel; and (c) be completed

by June 11, 2010.

2. Absent an agreement between the parties as to written discovery (interrogatories

or documents), defendants may also proceed with three of their proposed document requests of

their choosing. No later than 2:00 p.m. on May 28, 2010, defendants shall identify the chosen

three requests to plaintiff. No later than June 4, 2010, plaintiff shall respond to defendants’

chosen three requests and produce non-privileged, responsive documents. Although some of

defendants’ chosen requests might purport to call for the production “all documents,” at this

time plaintiff shall only be obliged to produce documents sufficient to show the information

being sought.

Case 5:10-cv-01902-JF Document 34 Filed 05/27/10 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

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

4

3. Defendants’ motion is denied in all other respects.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

May 27, 2010

Case 5:10-cv-01902-JF Document 34 Filed 05/27/10 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

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

5

5:10-cv-01902-JF Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Bobby A. Ghajar ghajarb@howrey.com, ramosm@howrey.com

J. Michael Keyes mike.keyes@klgates.com, rosemary.wood@klgates.com

Kathryn Mary Wheble kwheble@klng.com

Robert Nathan Phillips phillipsr@howrey.com, kalaheled@howrey.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:10-cv-01902-JF Document 34 Filed 05/27/10 Page 5 of 5