Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company v. Inspur Group Co., Ltd.

Background

The court considered joint discovery-dispute letters concerning whether Inspur Group Co., Ltd. and Kaytus Singapore PTE. Ltd. had to participate in discovery while their motions to dismiss were pending.

Inspur Group argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it because it had no relevant contacts with the United States. It also argued that Hewlett Packard Enterprise had not adequately supported a theory that the accused products entered the stream of commerce through its conduct. Inspur Group asserted that it was a Chinese company that had not done business in the United States and had not made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported the accused products anywhere in the world.

Kaytus Singapore argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it because it was a Singapore company with no presence in California and did not sell, offer to sell, manufacture, or import the accused products in the United States.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not automatically pause discovery whenever a potentially case-ending motion is pending. However, district courts have discretion to control discovery, including by staying it.

The court described a two-part test often used in the Ninth Circuit. First, the pending motion must potentially dispose of the entire case or the issue targeted by discovery. Second, the motion must be capable of being decided without additional discovery. The court also takes a preliminary look at the motion’s merits when deciding whether to pause discovery.

The court found that the personal-jurisdiction arguments could potentially dispose of the case as to Inspur Group and Kaytus Singapore. Although Hewlett Packard Enterprise made substantial arguments opposing the motions and might prevail, the court found the motions sufficiently substantive that it was appropriate to avoid imposing the burden and expense of discovery on those defendants before resolving them.

The court also found that the motions could be resolved without additional discovery. Hewlett Packard Enterprise requested jurisdictional discovery in its opposition papers. The court did not decide that request at this stage; it stated that the request would be addressed when the court resolved the motions to dismiss.

Disposition

Judge Jon S. Tigar granted Inspur Group’s and Kaytus Singapore’s requests for a stay of discovery. The stay applies to discovery as to those defendants while their motions to dismiss are pending. The order did not decide the motions to dismiss or the request for jurisdictional discovery.