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

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION [7] 8 LIGHT & WONDER INC., et al., Case No. 25-cv-05821-PCP (VKD) 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE 10 v. APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO SERVE EXPEDITED THIRD PARTY 11 BEIJING BETA TECHNOLOGY CO., DISCOVERY LTD., et al., 12 Re: Dkt. No. 15 Defendants. [13] 14 On August 5, 2025, plaintiffs Light & Wonder, Inc. and SciPlay Games, LLC (collectively, 15 “LNW”) applied ex parte for an order permitting LNW to serve document subpoenas on 10 non16 parties1 before the parties have completed the initial conference required by Rule 26(f) of the 17 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. No. 15. Although LNW filed its application on an ex 18 parte basis, LNW and two of the three named defendants, Hong Kong Fotoable Technology 19 Limited (“HKF”) and Rein Technology Limited (“Rein”), later stipulated to a briefing schedule 20 for HKF’s and Rein’s response to the application and LNW’s reply. See Dkt. Nos. 27, 28. On 21 August 29, 2025, HKF and Rein filed an opposition to the application, to which LNW replied. 22 Dkt. Nos. 31, 33. The Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument. Civil 23 L.R. 7-1(b). 24 For the reasons explained below, the Court denies LNW’s application for expedited 25 discovery of non-parties. All parties who have appeared in the action shall confer on or before 26 September 18, 2025—the last day to conduct a Rule 26(f) conference—regarding the discovery [27] 1 LNW seeks from non-parties, and LNW may thereafter commence discovery in accordance with 2 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable law, unless the Court orders otherwise. 3 I. BACKGROUND 4 LNW sues defendants HKF, Rein, and Beijing Beta Technology Co., Ltd. (“Beijing Beta”) 5 for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition, in connection with 6 defendants’ promotion of mobile games collectively referred to as Jackpotland. Dkt. No. 1. HKF 7 and Rein have been served and have appeared in the action. Dkt. Nos. 22-25. HKF and Rein are 8 wholly-owned subsidiaries of “Beijing Beta Technology Limited,” sued herein as defendant 9 Beijing Beta. Dkt. No. 31 at 2 n.1. Beijing Beta has not been served and has not appeared in the 10 action. 11 LNW does not attach its proposed document subpoenas to its application. However, it 12 represents that it intends to request the following “general categories” of information from each 13 non-party: 14 (1) Agreements relating to Jackpotland and/or any Defendant [15] (2) Documents that would disclose the identity or contact information of individuals or 16 entities associated with Jackpotland 17 (3) Documents relating to payments associated with Jackpotland advertisements and revenue earned from the game, including information relating to bank accounts and 18 financial institutions that received funds 19 (4) Documents and communications relating to advertisements for Jackpotland, including identities of individuals or entities who placed or created the advertisements, the [20] content of the advertisements, as well as information relating to targeting, 21 monetization, click-through rates, conversions, campaign spends, and strategies 22 (5) Documents and communications relating to the Jackpotland app, including changes to the content of the app, consumer complaints and reviews [23] (6) All documents and communications relating to Jackpotland [24] 25 Dkt. No. 15 at 7. 26 II. DISCUSSION 27 Pursuant to Rule 26(d), a party “may not seek discovery from any source” prior to the 1 management conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d), (f). Courts in the Ninth Circuit generally require 2 that the party seeking discovery in advance of the Rule 26(f) conference show “good cause” for 3 such discovery. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-cv-01846-LHK, 2011 WL 4 1938154, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2011); Megaupload, Ltd. v. Universal Music Grp., Inc., No. 5 11-cv-6216-CW (JSC), 2012 WL 243687 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2012); Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo 6 Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “Good cause may be found where the 7 need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the 8 prejudice to the responding party.” Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276 . Courts must consider the 9 entirety of the record and whether, in the circumstances presented, expedited discovery is 10 reasonable. Megaupload, 2012 WL 243687 , at *2. In making this determination, courts 11 commonly consider the following factors: (1) whether a preliminary injunction or other request for 12 emergency relief is pending; (2) the breadth of the discovery requested; (3) the purpose for 13 requesting the expedited discovery; (4) the burden on the responding parties to comply with the 14 requests; and (5) how far in advance of the typical discovery process the request was made. See [15] id. 16 Here, LNW explains that it “is not seeking expedited discovery to preserve evidence or 17 prevent ongoing infringement.” Dkt. No. 33 at 2. Rather, LNW seeks “financial and account18 level data from third parties to assess whether asset transfers outside the Court’s reach are 19 occurring.” Id. LNW argues that expedited discovery is necessary because defendants are foreign 20 entities and “appear to be structured to obfuscate ownership and financial accountability.” Id. 21 HKF and Rein respond that there is no justification for expedited discovery of non-parties. 22 They observe that no defendant has attempted to “obfuscate” its identity, ownership, or service 23 address, as HKF and Rein have both been successfully served and have appeared in the action and 24 LNW has also identified defendant Beijing Beta, the corporate parent. Dkt. No. 31 at 7. Counsel 25 for HKF and Rein represents that all three defendants, including Beijing Beta, have implemented a 26 litigation hold in order to preserve relevant evidence, and in the meantime, defendants have also 27 removed the challenged advertisements in an effort mitigate potential damages. Id. at 2, 5. 1 Court may infer that any defendant has assets in the United States which are being transferred or 2 dissipated. Id. at 9. Finally, HKF and Rein contend that the discovery LNW intends to seek from 3 non-parties is very broad and would likely implicate defendants’ interests, including their interests 4 in protecting confidential business information. Id. at 10. 5 LNW has not shown good cause for expedited discovery of non-parties for several reasons. 6 First, as LNW concedes, it has not made any request for emergency or provisional relief, 7 such as a motion to freeze assets. Moreover, LNW’s application provides no basis for the Court to 8 conclude that any defendant has assets in the United States that are at risk of transfer or 9 dissipation. At best, LNW asserts that some of the non-parties from whom it proposes to obtain 10 discovery are likely to have information that will “permit LNW to determine whether assets 11 located in the United States . . . are being dissipated and whether LNW will need to seek interim 12 relief, such as an asset freeze.” Dkt. No. 15 at 8 (emphasis added). The Court is not prepared to 13 assume that merely because defendants are foreign entities they will undertake efforts to defeat 14 LNW’s ability to recover its alleged damages. 15 Second, as LNW also concedes, its proposed discovery of non-parties is “comprehensive.” 16 Id. at 7. Because LNW did not provide copies of its proposed subpoenas or its proposed document 17 requests, the Court considers the “general categories” listed in LNW’s application. The scope of 18 this proposed discovery is very broad and much of it is untethered to LNW’s purported 19 justification for seeking non-party discovery on an expedited basis. For example, it is not clear 20 why LNW requires discovery of “documents and communications relating to the Jackpotland app, 21 including . . . consumer complaints and reviews,” see id., if its goal is to determine whether 22 defendants are dissipating their U.S. assets. In short, LNW seeks broad discovery of non-parties 23 and its proposed document requests do not align with its purported purpose for seeking expedited 24 discovery in the first instance. The Court agrees with Judge Corley’s observation in Megaupload 25 that “efficiency” is an insufficient justification for expedited discovery. See Megaupload, 2012 26 WL 243687 , at *3. 27 Third, the Court notes that LNW does not argue that it requires discovery of non-parties in 1 already served. While LNW initially argued that defendants have “structured their organization to 2 avoid detection,” see Dkt. No. 15 at 10, that contention is not supported; indeed, it is contradicted 3 by other evidence in the record, including HKF’s and Rein’s corporate disclosure statements. See 4 Dkt. Nos. 29, 30. Although LNW suggests that unknown others may be involved in the alleged 5 infringement and unfair competition, it does not adequately explain why it requires discovery from 6 non-parties on an expedited basis in order to identify additional defendants. 7 Fourth, because LNW has not provided copies of its proposed subpoenas, the Court cannot 8 accurately assess how burdensome each subpoena might be for any non-party or for any defendant 9 whose interests might be implicated by such a subpoena. Nevertheless, courts in this Circuit have 10 long taken care to protect non-parties from bearing the burden of discovery properly borne by 11 parties to a litigation. See United States v. CBS, Inc., 666 F.2d 364 , 371 (9th Cir. 1982) 12 (“Nonparty witnesses are powerless to control the scope of litigation and discovery, and should 13 not be forced to subsidize an unreasonable share of the costs of a litigation to which they are not a 14 party.”); see also Nidec Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan, 249 F.R.D. 575, 577 (N.D. Cal. 2007) 15 (“There is simply no reason to burden nonparties when the documents sought are in possession of 16 the party defendant.”). LNW has not shown that the expedited discovery it seeks is unavailable 17 from at least HKF and/or Rein, the two defendants who have already appeared in the action, and 18 the Court is reluctant to authorize “comprehensive” expedited discovery of non-parties without 19 such a showing. 20 Fifth, as LNW acknowledges, it need only wait until, at the latest, September 18, 2025— 21 the deadline for the parties to conduct their Rule 26(f) conference—before commencing discovery. 22 See Dkt. No. 33 at 2; Dkt. No. 8. LNW argues that it is simply asking for “a short head start on 23 third-party discovery.” Dkt. No. 33 at 3. While in some circumstances asking for discovery that 24 is only slightly in advance of the usual timing might favor granting the application, the Court finds 25 no good cause for the “head start” LNW seeks. Rather, LNW’s efforts to obtain discovery from 26 non-parties would benefit from engaging first in the candid discussion with HKF and Rein of the 27 discovery plan that Rule 26 contemplates. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3). In particular, the parties 1 discovery can only be obtained from non-parties. 2 || I. CONCLUSION 3 The Court denies plaintiffs’ application for expedited discovery of non-parties. All parties 4 || who have appeared in the action shall confer on or before September 18, 2025 regarding the 5 discovery LNW seeks from non-parties, and LNW may thereafter commence discovery in 6 accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable law, unless the Court orders 7 otherwise. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: September 11, 2025 [10] 11 Unreiuiak., QMarebe: Virginia K. DeMarchi 12 United States Magistrate Judge [16] = 17 Z 18