Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-05939/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-05939-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cellspin Soft, Inc.
Plaintiff
GoPro, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

CELLSPIN SOFT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOPRO, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:17-cv-05939-YGR (KAW)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 

RENEWED EX PARTE APPLICATION 

FOR A DEBTOR'S EXAMINATION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 106, 107

I. BACKGROUND

On November 21, 2018, in the related case, Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc. and 

Misfit Inc., Case No. 17-cv-05933-YGR, the undersigned granted Fossil and Misfit’s ex parte 

application for a debtor’s examination, and set the judgment-debtor examination of Plaintiff 

Cellspin Soft, Inc. for February 21, 2019. For the sake of judicial efficiency, Defendant GoPro, 

Inc. and Plaintiff stipulated to GoPro’s participation in the February 21, 2019 examination. (Dkt. 

No. 97.) On February 21, 2019, the parties appeared, but Defendants did not hire a court reporter, 

so the examination did not go forward. 

On March 8, 2019, GoPro filed a renewed ex parte application. (Dkt. Nos. 101 & 102.) On 

March 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed an opposition, in which it raised essentially the same unsuccessful 

arguments that it had raised previously. (Pl.’s Opp’n, Dkt. No. 103.) On March 22, 2019, 

Defendant filed its reply. (Def.’s Reply, Dkt. No. 105.) 

On April 4, 2019, Defendants filed a second renewed ex parte application to notice the 

examination for May 16, 2019. (Def.’s Mot., Dkt. No. 106 & 107.) On April 15, 2019, Plaintiff 

filed a response that is virtually identical to the March 15 opposition. (Dkt. No. 108.) Defendant 

did not file a reply.

Case 4:17-cv-05939-YGR Document 109 Filed 04/25/19 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

II. DISCUSSION

In its opposition, Cellspin again raises the arguments that the request is unduly 

burdensome, duplicative, harassing, and premature because the case is on appeal. (Pl.’s Opp’n at 

10-14.) The Court disagrees for the reasons set forth in the November 21, 2018 order, and 

incorporates that order herein. Order, Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc. and Misfit Inc., Case 

No. 17-cv-05933-YGR (N.D. Cal., Nov. 21, 2018), ECF No. 119 at 2-3.

Additionally, Plaintiff argues that it already appeared at the February 21, 2019 

examination, so it should not have to appear again. (Pl.’s Opp’n at 16.) Plaintiff argues that its

designee took an entire day off from work to be examined, but Defendants’ failure to procure a 

court reporter prevented the examination from going forward. Id. Plaintiff argues that the 

examination could have been recorded using a smartphone, which would have been less 

burdensome than rescheduling the examination and requiring its corporate designee to appear 

again at a later date. Id. at 17. This argument is unavailing. While Defendants should have 

arranged for a court reporter to memorialize the original examination, Plaintiff brought a number

of unmeritorious lawsuits against multiple defendants, who have since obtained judgments against 

it. Now, four defendant corporations in three related cases are coordinating to hold a single 

judgment-debtor examination instead of having Plaintiff undergo examination four times. Thus, 

while Defendants should have been prepared to go forward on February 21, Plaintiff’s designee 

will only have to appear twice rather than four times, which is to his benefit. 

That the parties could have used a smartphone to record the proceedings, while perhaps 

novel, is not persuasive, because a court reporter can certify that the transcript is true and correct.

Moreover, since the judgment-debtor examination was not held, California Code of Civil 

Procedure § 708.110(c) is inapplicable, and the Court may re-order the examination to occur at 

any time. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 708.110(b).

Accordingly, Defendant’s renewed ex parte application is GRANTED.

III. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, Defendant’s renewed ex parte application for an order requiring 

Cellspin Soft Inc. to appear for a judgment-debtor examination is GRANTED, and the 

Case 4:17-cv-05939-YGR Document 109 Filed 04/25/19 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

examination is set for May 16, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. The parties are advised that they are responsible 

for hiring a court reporter for the proceeding, and that the district court will not assist them in 

procuring same.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cv-05939-YGR Document 109 Filed 04/25/19 Page 3 of 3