Tesla, Inc. v. Proception, Inc.
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:25-cv-04963
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Tesla, Inc. v. Proception, Inc., Judge Van Keulen suspended preliminary-injunction briefing, granted in part and denied in part Tesla’s reply request, and set expedited-discovery deadlines.
Tesla, Inc., Proception, Inc., and Zhongji Jay Li, whose briefing and hearing schedule was set by the order.
What happened
Tesla, Inc. v. Proception, Inc. involved Tesla’s motions for a preliminary injunction, expedited discovery, and permission to shorten the response time for the expedited-discovery motion. The defendants opposed shortening the schedule.
The court suspended briefing on the preliminary-injunction motion until it resolved the expedited-discovery motion or issued another order. It granted in part and denied in part Tesla’s request to file a reply, accepting only the portion that supplied omitted facts. It also set deadlines and a hearing date for the expedited-discovery motion.
Judge Susan Van Keulen issued the order on June 26, 2025. The order set procedure and did not decide whether Tesla was entitled to a preliminary injunction or expedited discovery.
The detailed version
- Tesla, Inc. v. Proception, Inc. · No. 5:25-cv-04963
- Susan Van Keulen
- June 26, 2025
Background
Tesla filed motions for a preliminary injunction, expedited discovery, and an administrative motion to shorten the time for responding to the expedited-discovery motion. Proception, Inc. and Zhongji Jay Li opposed the motion to shorten time. Tesla also sought permission to file a reply concerning that motion.
Rulings
Preliminary-Injunction Motion
The court suspended briefing on Tesla’s preliminary-injunction motion. It reasoned that discovery responses would not be due until after Tesla’s reply deadline, even under an expedited schedule, so those responses would not assist the court at that stage. Briefing remained suspended pending resolution of the expedited-discovery motion or further court order.
Motion for Leave to File a Reply
The court stated that replies ordinarily are not provided for this type of administrative motion. It accepted and considered only the portion of Tesla’s proposed reply that supplied facts omitted from the defendants’ opposition. The court did not accept the portion addressing allegedly inapplicable case law. Tesla’s motion for leave was granted in part and denied in part.
Expedited-Discovery Schedule
The court rejected the defendants’ argument that shortening the briefing and hearing schedule would prejudice them. It set the following schedule for Tesla’s expedited-discovery motion:
- The defendants’ opposition was due June 30, 2025, at noon. - Tesla’s reply was due July 2, 2025, at noon. - The hearing was set for July 3, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., by remote videoconference.
Effect of the Order
This was a case-management order. It set briefing procedures, partially ruled on Tesla’s request to file a reply, and suspended preliminary-injunction briefing. It did not decide the merits of Tesla’s preliminary-injunction request or expedited-discovery motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.