Corallo v. NSO Group Technologies Limited

Background

Defendant Q Cyber and its wholly owned subsidiary, defendant NSO Group, are described in the opinion as Israeli companies. The opinion refers to them collectively as NSO. NSO moved to dismiss Francesco Corallo’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction—the court’s power to exercise authority over a defendant—or under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which concerns whether another forum is more appropriate for the case.

NSO supported its motion with declarations stating, among other things, that NSO is based in Israel, has no offices in California or elsewhere in the United States, and sells technology under restrictions imposed by the Israeli government. Corallo did not address the dismissal motion’s merits in his opposition. Instead, he requested jurisdictional discovery to investigate the accuracy of NSO’s declarations and other issues concerning NSO’s contacts with California. He also asked for 30 additional days to oppose the motion if discovery was denied.

Discovery Dispute

The court found that Corallo had not shown an entitlement to, or need for, jurisdictional discovery. Nevertheless, in an effort to resolve the matter on the merits, the court directed the parties to meet and confer about limited discovery that could be completed within 45 days. The parties reported that they had agreed Corallo could serve a document request limited to factual, jurisdiction-related assertions in NSO’s motion and declarations.

The court found that the document request Corallo actually served was grossly overbroad, not narrowly targeted, and unlikely to be completed within 45 days. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), discovery must be reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and proportional to the needs of the case. The court stated that contacts outside California were completely irrelevant to the jurisdictional inquiry. Contacts within California were relevant only to the extent Corallo’s claims could be said to arise from or relate to those activities.

The parties could not agree on narrower requests. NSO argued that Israeli law barred any document production, while Corallo sought to address relevance, burden, and overbreadth before resolving the effect of Israeli law.

Ruling and Disposition

The court stated that further discovery proceedings were not warranted at that point and ordered Corallo to file his opposition to the motion to dismiss by July 24, 2023. NSO’s reply was due July 31, 2023. The matter would then be set for hearing or submitted without argument at the court’s discretion. The order suspended discovery and reset the briefing schedule; it did not decide NSO’s motion to dismiss. Chief United States District Judge Richard Seeborg signed the order.