Valna Holding Cypress Ltd v. Bibo Biopharma Engineering Company Ltd., et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 VALNA HOLDING CYPRESS LTD, Case No. 25-cv-03328-KAW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

10 BIBO BIOPHARMA ENGINEERING Re: Dkt. No. 22 COMPANY LTD., et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Petitioner Valna Holding Cypress Ltd. filed this action against Defendants BiBo 14 Biopharama Engineering Company Ltd. (“BiBo Biopharma”), BiBo Pharma Scientific Company 15 Ltd. (“BiBo Pharma”), and BiBo Biopharma Engineering Co., Ltd. (“BiBo Biopharma MA”), 16 seeking to confirm an arbitration award. (Amend. Pet., Dkt. No. 15.) On December 11, 2025, 17 Petitioner filed a motion for expedited discovery on third-party 89bio, Inc. (“89bio”). (Mot. for 18 Discovery, Dkt. No. 22.) 19 The Court previously found this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant 20 to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). (Dkt. No. 28.) Having considered the filings and relevant legal 21 authorities, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for expedited discovery on 89bio. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Beginning in September 2022, Petitioner and Respondents BiBo Biopharma and BiBo 24 Pharma attended an arbitration before the London Court of International Arbitration. (Amend. 25 Pet. ¶ 1.) On April 10, 2024, the arbitrator issued a final award, requiring that Respondents BiBo 26 Biopharma and BiBo Pharma pay $3 million, as well as pre-award interest of $175,808.22 and 27 post-award interest at the rate of 3% per annum. (Amend. Pet. ¶ 15.) On July 24, 2024, the 1 €1,133,963.71 in legal costs and expenses and £7,037.17 in arbitration costs, as well as post-award 2 interest at the rate of 3% per annum. (Amend. Pet. ¶ 15.) On April 14, 2025, Petitioner filed this 3 action to have the arbitral awards confirmed. 4 On December 11, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant motion seeking expedited discovery on 5 89bio. Specifically, Petitioner believes Respondent BiBo Biopharma holds accounts receivables 6 from 89bio, and such accounts receivable will likely become a target of Petitioner’s collection and 7 enforcement efforts. (Mot. for Discovery at 5.) 8 On December 17, 2025, the Court ordered Petitioner to serve the instant motion on 89bio 9 and extended the opposition deadline to January 29, 2026. (Dkt. No. 23.) On December 22, 2025, 10 Petitioner filed a proof of service, stating that the instant motion and the Court’s December 17, 11 2025 order were personally served on 89bio’s agent for service of process on December 18, 2025. 12 (Dkt. No. 26.) 13 To date, no opposition has been filed. 14 II. LEGAL STANDARD 15 Rule 26(d) provides that “[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before the 16 parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except . . . when authorized by these rules, by 17 stipulation, or by court order.” In deciding whether to allow early discovery, courts apply a good 18 cause standard. Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. Johnston, Case No. 16-cv-3404, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19 44863, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2017); Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 20 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in 21 consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the party.” Semitool, 22 Inc., 208 F.R.D. at 276. Factors commonly considered by the parties include: “(1) whether a 23 preliminary injunction is pending; (2) the breadth of the discovery requests; (3) the purpose of 24 requesting the expedited discovery; (4) the burden on the defendants to comply with the requests; 25 and (5) how far in advance of the typical discovery process the request was made. Am. LegalNet, 26 Inc. v. Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1067 (C.D. Cal. 2009); see also Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. 27 Co., Case No. 11-cv-1846-LHK, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53233, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2011). 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 The Court finds that there is no good cause to permit discovery, as Petitioner fails to show 3 that the need for expedited discovery outweighs the prejudice to the party. 4 First, there is no motion for a preliminary injunction, and Petitioner does not suggest that 5 they intend to file such a motion. (Mot. for Discovery at 6.) Further, it is not clear that 89bio’s 6 assets will ultimately be at issue in this case; rather, Petitioner asserts that it “believes that BiBo 7 [Biopharma] holds accounts receivables from 89bio,” and that such an account “will likely 8 become a target of Petitioner’s collection and enforcement efforts.” (Id. at 5.) Yet there is nothing 9 to suggest that Petitioner will not be able to obtain assets directly from Respondents, such that the 10 Court should allow discovery on a non-party before the arbitration award at issue is even 11 confirmed. See Light & Wonder Inc. v. Beijing Beta Tech. Co., No. 25-cv-05821-PCP (VKD), 12 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178409, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2025) (denying expedited discovery 13 where there was “no basis for the Court to conclude that any defendant had assets in the United 14 States that are at risk of transfer or dissipation”). 15 Second, the Court acknowledges that the breadth of Petitioner’s proposed discovery is 16 narrow, as it seeks: (1) the collaboration agreement between 89bio and Respondent BiBo 17 Biopharma, (2) communications showing proof of a $161.5 million payment, and (3) payment 18 schedules for a forthcoming $13.5 million milestone payment. (See Geng Decl. Exh. A 19 (“Subpoena”) at 5.) The three categories are discrete and focused on the payments due to 20 Respondent BiBo Biopharma. 21 Third, Petitioner seeks discovery on 89bio purportedly because discovery “will protect the 22 Petitioner’s rights and substantially move the case forward,” specifically whether “it can enforce 23 its confirmed arbitral award against BiBo [Biopharma]’s accounts receivables. (Mot. for 24 Discovery at 7, 8.) Thus, it appears Petitioner’s discovery request does not concern the merits of 25 the case, i.e., whether the arbitral award should be confirmed. Rather, it concerns a potential 26 avenue of enforcement should the arbitral award be confirmed and Petitioner be found to be 27 entitled to Respondent BiBo Biopharma’s accounts receivables as held by 89bio. Contrast with ] would be relevant and produced in the normal course of discovery). The Court therefore disagrees 2 || that the proposed discovery will move the case forward in a meaningful way. 3 Fourth, the burden on 89bio is arguably not significant, given the narrow scope of the 4 || subpoena. That said, “courts in this Circuit have long taken care to protect non-parties from 5 || bearing the burden of discovery properly borne by parties to a litigation.” Light & Wonder Inc., 6 || 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178409, at *8 (citing United States v. CBS, Inc., 666 F.2d 364, 371 (9th 7 || Cir. 1982). Further, Petitioner has not demonstrated that the discovery sought would not be 8 available from Respondents. /d. at *9; see also Nidec Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan, 249 F.R.D. 9 || 575,577 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (“There is simply no reason to burden nonparties when the documents 10 || sought are in possession of the party defendant.”). Under these circumstances, while the burden 11 on 89bio is not significant, it also does not appear to be warranted. 12 Finally, Petitioner asserts that the Court need not consider how far in advance of the 13 || typical discovery process the request was made because arbitration proceedings are exempt from 14 || Rule 26 disclosure requirements. (Mot. for Discovery at 9.) Rather, per Civil Local Rule 16-7, 3 15 || when a case is exempt from Rule 26’s disclosure requirements, “[d]iscovery shall proceed . . . only a 16 || at the time, and to the extent, authorized by the Judge in the case management order.” Thus, this 17 || factor appears to be inapplicable because “there is no ‘typical’ discovery timeline here,” as “the Zz 18 Court otherwise controls discovery proceedings.” (/d.) 19 Taken together, the Court finds that Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause, as the 20 || need for discovery regarding enforcement of an arbitration award that has yet to be confirmed 21 does not outweigh even the low burden to 89bio. 22 IV. CONCLUSION 23 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for expedited 24 || discovery. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: March 3, 2026

28 United States Magistrate Judge