Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-05672/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-05672-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:504 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

MICHEL KECK,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALIBABA.COM, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-05672-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO AMEND CASE

MANAGEMENT ORDER

[Re: ECF 186]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Case Management Order (ECF 180). 

Mot., ECF 186. Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the Court extend the deadline for adding 

parties and amending the pleadings to be 60 days after the Court rules on Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss instead of the current May 14, 2018 deadline (the sixtieth day from the issuance of the 

Case Management Order). Id. at 1. Defendants oppose the motion. Opp’n, ECF 187. Pursuant to 

Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court takes this matter under submission without oral argument. For 

the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. 

A party seeking to amend a scheduling order must show “good cause” for such relief. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 

consent.”). A “good cause determination focuses primarily on the diligence of the moving party.” 

Yeager v. Yeager, No. 2:06-CV-001196, 2009 WL 1159175, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2009)

(citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). Courts may 

take into account any resulting prejudice to the opposing party, but “the focus of the [Rule 16(b)] 

inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification ... [i]f that party was not 

diligent, the inquiry should end.” In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 

716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013) aff'd sub nom. Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1591 (2015)

Case 5:17-cv-05672-BLF Document 194 Filed 05/04/18 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

(quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).

Plaintiff argues that there is good cause to extend the deadline for amending the pleadings 

or adding parties due to the circumstances of this case. Mot. ¶ 10. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts 

that this case raises special issues regarding “cross-border discovery” and “foreign language 

documents.” Id. ¶ 13. Indeed, Defendants have identified that those potential challenges could 

impact the schedule in the parties’ Case Management Statement. Case Management Statement, 

ECF 173 at 19. Plaintiff further argues that two Defendants Alibaba Group Holding, Ltd. 

(“AGHL”) and Taobao China Holding, Ltd. (“Taobao”) are refusing to engage with merits 

discovery but that Plaintiff will not dispute merits discovery at this time to avoid interference with 

the parties’ efforts on jurisdictional discovery. Mot. ¶¶ 6–9. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has acted diligently in seeking to modify the scheduling 

order. Plaintiff has diligently sought discovery by promptly sending requests for production on 

February 2, 2018 when the parties conducted the Rule 26(f) conference. Mot. 3; Case 

Management Statement 9. Plaintiff also filed the instant motion without undue delay—about ten 

days after AGHL and Taobao formally objected to all non-jurisdictional discovery. Mot. 14. In 

fact, Defendants do not argue that Plaintiff lacks diligence. Rather, Defendants essentially 

respond that Plaintiff’s request is premature and that the Court should wait to determine whether 

good cause exists when Plaintiff actually seeks to amend the complaint. However, Defendants’ 

argument is unpersuasive because Plaintiff is seeking only to amend the scheduling order not the 

complaint at this time. The above factors showing diligence supports a finding of “good cause.” 

Yeager, 2009 WL 1159175, at *2 (“[G]ood cause determination focuses primarily on the diligence 

of the moving party.”).

Although Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers diligence of the party 

seeking the amendment, the Court may take into account any resulting prejudice to the opposing 

party. See W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d at 737 (quoting Johnson, 975 

F.2d at 609). Here, the consideration of prejudice does not undercut Plaintiff’s request. As 

Plaintiff argues, Defendants themselves had proposed that “[a]ny amendments to the Complaint 

should be made by no later than one (1) month after the pending Motion to Dismiss is decided.” 

Case 5:17-cv-05672-BLF Document 194 Filed 05/04/18 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

Case Management Statement 9. Hence, Defendants have contemplated amendments to the 

complaint after their motion to dismiss was ruled on. Adding an additional 30 days to Defendants’ 

proposed deadline will not prejudice Defendants as trial is schedule more than three years away 

(ECF 180). 

In addition, the circumstances of this case warrant an extension of the deadline to amend 

the pleadings. As Plaintiff argues, this case involves special cross-border discovery challenges. 

Mot. ¶ 10; Case Management Statement 19. Also, AGHL and Taobao’s delay in merits discovery 

and the need to avoid interference on the parties’ efforts on jurisdictional discovery support a 

showing that there are good reasons to extend the deadline. Mot. ¶¶ 6–9. The Court therefore 

finds that Plaintiff has shown sufficient reasons that support her request. 

For the above reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown “good cause” under Rule 

16(b) that warrants extending the deadline to amend the pleadings. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is 

GRANTED. The last day to amend pleadings or add parties shall be 60 days after the Court rules 

on Defendants’ motion to dismiss at ECF 152.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2018

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-05672-BLF Document 194 Filed 05/04/18 Page 3 of 3