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

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO, LTD., et
al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CM HK, LTD.,
Defendant.
Case No. 24-cv-06567-JST (LJC)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DISCOVERY
LETTER
Re: Dkt. No. 147
Before the Court is the parties’ joint discovery letter regarding Defendant CM HK, Ltd.’s
(CM HK’s) interrogatories and 30(b)(6) deposition notice served on Plaintiffs Samsung
Electronics Co, Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (together, Samsung). ECF No. 147.
Having reviewed the letter, Judge Tigar’s Order granting CM HK’s motion to dismiss and
authorizing jurisdictional discovery, the relevant authorities, and the record in this case, CM HK’s
request for discovery relief is DENIED in PART and GRANTED in PART. The undersigned
denies CM HK’s request for an order compelling Samsung to identify corporate witness(es) and
provide dates for the depositions on the noticed topics. The undersigned, however, grants CM
HK’s request to have Samsung verify the interrogatory response Samsung has already provided.
Samsung need not supplement its responses at this time.
Judge Tigar’s order clearly contemplated jurisdictional discovery pertaining to the unity of
interest and ownership prong of the alter ego test. See ECF No. 73 at 19-20 (authorizing Samsung
to obtain discovery to evaluate “the extent of the connection between CM HK and CyWee”). This
is discovery that Samsung is authorized to seek because it has the burden to establish the court’s
jurisdiction over a defendant. The alter ego test’s second prong relates to whether the failure to
Case 4:24-cv-06567-JST Document 148 Filed 12/29/25 Page 1 of 3

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
disregard or ignore the separateness of the two entities would result in “fraud or injustice.” Ranza
v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 1073 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotations omitted). Judge Tigar
recognized the test’s second prong, but did not address to what extent jurisdictional discovery
regarding that part of the alter-ego test was warranted, as “Samsung has not satisfied the first
prong of the alter ego analysis.” ECF No. 73 at 18. Given that to prevail under the second prong
of the alter ego test, Samsung must “plead facts sufficient to demonstrate that conduct amounting
to bad faith makes it inequitable for the corporate owner to hide behind the corporate form,” and
given that discovery under Rule 26 is generally reciprocal, CM HK may serve limited discovery to
understand Samsung’s view of the harm it has suffered or inequity that would result. Prods. &
Ventures Int’l v. Axus Stationary (Shanghai) Ltd., No. 16-cv-00669, 2017 WL 201703, at *8 (N.D.
Cal. Jan. 18, 2017) (internal quotations omitted). However, “jurisdictional discovery must
comport with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26,” and CM HK’s 30(b)(6) deposition addressing the range of
noticed topics, at this stage of the litigation, is disproportionate to the needs of the case. See
Fleites v. MindGeek S.A.R.L., No. 21-04920, 2023 WL 3526180, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2023).
At the present time, jurisdictional discovery is undertaken simply to determine whether Samsung
can establish a prima facie basis for jurisdiction, such that the claims may survive a further motion
to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. See In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715
F.3d 716, 741 (9th Cir. 2013), aff’d sub nom. Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 575 U.S. 373 (2015)
(“When a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the
burden of demonstrating that the court has jurisdiction … However, the plaintiff must make only a
prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to dismiss.”) (internal
quotations and citation omitted). Given the scope of jurisdictional discovery, a wide-ranging
30(b)(6) deposition of Samsung’s corporate representative is not warranted.
Although CM HK argues that “Samsung seeks to replead alter-ego jurisdiction based on
alleged harm known only to Samsung,” Samsung has identified the types “of injustice and harm”
caused by CM HK and CyWee’s alleged alter ego relationship. ECF No. 147-1 at 1-2. As facts
regarding CM HK and CyWee’s relationship are in CM HK’s possession, the Court is skeptical
that additional jurisdictional discovery from Samsung is necessary to enable CM HK to present a
Case 4:24-cv-06567-JST Document 148 Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 3

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
fulsome argument at the motion to dismiss stage regarding the Court’s purported lack of
jurisdiction.
This order is without prejudice to future requests CM HK may raise that are more precisely
tailored to disputed facts that CM HK seeks to challenge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 29, 2025
LISA J. CISNEROS
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:24-cv-06567-JST Document 148 Filed 12/29/25 Page 3 of 3