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

Opinion

LIGHT & WONDER INC., et al., Case No. 25-cv-05821-PCP (VKD)

Plaintiffs, ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE v. APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO SERVE EXPEDITED THIRD PARTY LTD., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 15 Defendants.

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

11 Unreiuiak., QMarebe: Virginia K. DeMarchi 12 United States Magistrate Judge

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28