Light & Wonder Inc. v. Beijing Beta Technology Co., Ltd.

Background

Light & Wonder, Inc. and SciPlay Games, LLC, collectively referred to as LNW, sued Beijing Beta Technology Co., Ltd., Hong Kong Fotoable Technology Limited, and Rein Technology Limited for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition involving the promotion of mobile games collectively called Jackpotland.

LNW applied for permission to serve document subpoenas on 10 nonparties before the parties completed the discovery-planning conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The application sought broad categories of documents, including agreements; information identifying people or entities associated with Jackpotland; payment, revenue, bank-account, and financial-institution information; advertising records; information about the Jackpotland app; consumer complaints and reviews; and all documents and communications relating to Jackpotland.

Hong Kong Fotoable and Rein opposed the application. They argued that expedited discovery was unjustified, noting that they had been served and had appeared, that LNW had identified Beijing Beta as the corporate parent, and that the defendants had implemented a litigation hold. They also argued that the requested discovery was broad and could implicate confidential business information.

Court’s analysis

Rule 26(d) generally prevents a party from seeking discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference. Courts in the Ninth Circuit generally require a showing of “good cause” for discovery sought earlier. The court explained that good cause may exist when the need for expedited discovery, considering the administration of justice, outweighs prejudice to the responding party. Relevant considerations include whether emergency relief is pending, the breadth and purpose of the request, the burden on responding parties, and how early the request was made.

The court found that LNW had not shown good cause. First, LNW acknowledged that it was not seeking expedited discovery to preserve evidence or prevent ongoing infringement and had not requested emergency relief, such as an order freezing assets. The application did not establish that defendants had United States assets at risk of transfer or dissipation, and the court would not assume that foreign entities would try to prevent recovery of alleged damages.

Second, LNW described its proposed discovery as “comprehensive,” but did not provide the proposed subpoenas or document requests. The court found the listed categories very broad and not sufficiently connected to LNW’s stated purpose of determining whether assets were being dissipated. The court also stated that efficiency alone was not enough to justify expedited discovery.

Third, LNW did not adequately explain why expedited nonparty discovery was necessary to identify possible additional defendants. The record did not support LNW’s assertion that the defendants had structured their organization to avoid detection.

Fourth, because LNW did not provide the proposed subpoenas, the court could not accurately evaluate the burden on nonparties or defendants whose interests might be affected. The court was reluctant to authorize comprehensive expedited discovery from nonparties without a showing that the information could not be obtained from Hong Kong Fotoable or Rein, which had already appeared.

Fifth, LNW only had to wait until September 18, 2025—the deadline for the Rule 26(f) conference—to begin ordinary discovery. The court concluded that the requested “head start” was not supported by good cause and that discussing the discovery plan with Hong Kong Fotoable and Rein first would be beneficial.

Ruling

Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi denied the plaintiffs’ application for expedited discovery of nonparties. The court directed all parties who had appeared to confer by September 18, 2025, about the nonparty discovery LNW sought. After that conference, LNW could begin discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable law, unless the court ordered otherwise.