Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd., et al. v. CM HK, Ltd.

Background

The parties submitted a joint discovery letter concerning CM HK’s interrogatories and notice for a deposition of Samsung’s corporate representative. The dispute arose during jurisdictional discovery, meaning discovery directed at determining whether the court has authority to hear the case. The order refers to an earlier order by Judge Tigar that authorized Samsung to seek discovery concerning the relationship between CM HK and CyWee and the unity-of-interest and ownership part of the alter-ego test.

The alter-ego test concerns whether two legally separate entities should be treated as sufficiently connected for jurisdictional purposes. The order explains that the test also includes whether respecting the entities’ separate status would cause fraud or injustice. Because Samsung had to establish jurisdiction, it was permitted to seek information about that relationship. The court also concluded that CM HK could serve limited, reciprocal discovery about Samsung’s view of the harm or unfairness it allegedly suffered.

Ruling

The court held that CM HK’s proposed corporate deposition, covering the noticed topics, was disproportionate to the needs of the case at this stage. The discovery was currently intended only to determine whether Samsung could make an initial showing of facts supporting jurisdiction and survive another motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction. The court therefore denied in part CM HK’s request for an order compelling Samsung to identify corporate witnesses and provide deposition dates.

The court granted in part CM HK’s request that Samsung verify the interrogatory response it had already provided. Samsung was not required to supplement its responses at that time. The order was without prejudice to future, more precisely tailored requests concerning disputed facts that CM HK seeks to challenge.