1 KEITH R.

HUMMEL (admitted pro hac vice)

khummel@cravath.com
2 JUSTIN C. CLARKE (admitted pro hac vice)
jcclarke@cravath.com
3
JONATHAN MOONEY (admitted pro hac vice)
4 jmooney@cravath.com
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
5 825 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10019
6 Telephone: (212) 474-1000

7 Facsimile: (212) 474-3700

8 JOE H. TUFFAHA (Bar No. 253723)

joe.tuffaha@ltlattorneys.com
9 PRASHANTH CHENNAKESAVAN (Bar No. 284022)
prashanth.chennakesavan@ltlattorneys.com
10 LTL ATTORNEYS LLP

11 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1400

Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426
12 Telephone: (213) 612-8900
Facsimile: (213) 612-3773
13
Attorneys for Defendant
14 and Cross-Complainant
Nouvel, LLC
15
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
16
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
17
WILLIAM B. PITT, an individual, and Case No. 22STCV06081
18 MONDO BONGO, LLC, a California
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL,
19 limited liability company, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
20 Plaintiffs, MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES RE:
21 vs. JURISDICTION FROM CROSS-
DEFENDANTS MARC-OLIVIER
22 ANGELINA JOLIE, an individual, and PERRIN, SAS MIRAVAL PROVENCE
NOUVEL, LLC, a California limited AND SAS FAMILLES PERRIN
23 liability company, YURI SHEFLER, an
individual, ALEXEY OLIYNIK, an Filed concurrently with Declaration of
24
individual, SPI GROUP HOLDING Jonathan Mooney, Declaration of Thomas
25 LIMITED, a Cyprus private limited Heintz, Request for Judicial Notice,
company, and TENUTE DEL MONDO Separate Statement, and Proposed Order
26 B.V., a Netherlands private limited
Judge: Hon. Lia Martin
company,
27 Dept.: 16
Defendants. Date: March 4, 2024
28 Time: 9:00 A.M.

CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 1 NOUVEL, LLC, a California limited
liability company, Reservation No.: 134640636368
2 Action Filed: February 17, 2022
Cross-Complainant,
Trial Date: None set.
3 vs.
4 WILLIAM B. PITT, an individual,
MONDO BONGO, LLC, a California
5 limited liability company, MARC-
OLIVIER PERRIN, an individual, SAS
6
MIRAVAL PROVENCE, a French limited
7 liability company, SAS FAMILLES
PERRIN, a French limited liability
8 company, ROLAND VENTURINI, an
individual, GARY BRADBURY, an
9 individual, WARREN GRANT, an
10 individual, SAS PETRICHOR, a French
limited liability company, VINS ET
11 DOMAINES PERRIN SC, a French
company, SAS MIRAVAL STUDIOS, a
12 French limited liability company, SASU
LE DOMAINE, a French limited liability
13 company, SAS DISTILLERIES DE LA
14 RIVIERA, a French limited liability
company, and ROES 1-10.
15
Cross-Defendants.
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 1 NOTICE OF MOTION

2 TO PLAINTIFF AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD:

3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 4, 2024, or as soon thereafter as the matter may

4 be heard, in Department 16 of the above-entitled court located at Stanley Mosk Courthouse, 111

5 N Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, Cross-Complainant Nouvel, LLC (“Nouvel”) will and

6 hereby does move this Court to compel Cross-Defendants Marc-Oliver Perrin, SAS Familles

7 Perrin, and SAS Miraval Provence (the “Perrin Cross-Defendants”) to produce the documents

8 specified in this motion in response to Nouvel’s First Set of Requests for Production Re: Personal

9 Jurisdiction to the Perrin Cross-Defendants (“the RFPs”), pursuant to California Code of Civil
10 Procedure §§ 2031.310 and 2016.040.

11 This motion seeks relief with respect to two discrete topics. First, Nouvel asks the Court
12 to overrule the Perrin Cross-Defendants’ objection based on the French Blocking Statute and their

13 position that they will produce discovery only in response to a letter of request under the Hague

14 Evidence Convention. Second, Nouvel asks the Court to compel the production of complete

15 responses to Nouvel’s jurisdictional RFPs No. 5, 10–12, 15, 17, and 23.

16 This motion is made upon the ground that good cause exists to compel the production of
17 the documents demanded. These documents are relevant for assessing whether the Perrin Cross-

18 Defendants are subject to this Court’s jurisdiction, and Perrin Cross-Defendants’ objections to

19 producing them are without merit.

20 This motion is based on this notice of motion, the attached memorandum of points and
21 authorities, the declaration of Jonathan Mooney, the separate statement filed concurrently

22 herewith, all of the pleadings, files, and records in this proceeding, all other matters of which the

23 Court may take judicial notice, and any argument or evidence that may be presented to, or

24 considered by, the Court prior to its ruling. 1

25

26
1
This motion is timely. Counsel for the Perrin Cross-Defendants agreed to extend Nouvel’s
27 deadline to move to compel further discovery responses until January 22, 2024. (Mooney Decl.
Ex. 9.)
28

CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 1 In accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310, prior to filing this

2 motion, the parties engaged in telephonic meet-and-confer discussions and were unable to reach an

3 agreement regarding the Perrin Cross-Defendants’ production of documents in response to the

4 RFPs. (Declaration of Jonathan Mooney dated January 22, 2024 ¶ 4.)

6 Dated: January 22, 2024 CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP

Keith R. Hummel (admitted pro hac vice)
7 Justin C. Clarke (admitted pro hac vice)
Jonathan Mooney (admitted pro hac vice)
8

9
LTL ATTORNEYS LLP
10 Joe H. Tuffaha
Prashanth Chennakesavan
11

12

13 By: /s/ Jonathan Mooney

JONATHAN MOONEY
14 Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant
NOUVEL, LLC
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 Page

3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................................. ii

4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................... 1

5 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................................................................................... 1

6 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 2

7 III. LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................... 3

8 IV. ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................... 3

9 A. The California Code, not the Hague Convention, should govern discovery. ............ 3
10 B. The Court should compel the Perrin Cross-Defendants to produce
documents in response to Nouvel’s RFP Nos. 5, 10–12, 15, 17, and 23. ................ 11
11
1. RFP Nos. 10-12 and 15 (Excluding Nouvel from Governance). ................. 13
12
2. RFPs Nos. 5 and 17 (Contracts with California). ........................................ 13
13
43. RFP No. 23 (Miraval Provence share transfer). .......................................... 15
14
4. The Perrin Cross-Defendants Cannot Rely on Other Parties to
15 Satisfy the Perrin Cross-Defendants’ Discovery Obligations for
Them ............................................................................................................ 15
16
V. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................... 15
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Page(s)
3 Cases

4 1880 Corp. v. Super. Ct.,

57 Cal. 2d 840 (1962) ................................................................................................................ 11
5
In re Air Cargo Shipping Servs. Antitrust Litig., 278 F.R.D. 51 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) ....................... 8, 9
6

7 Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Societe Commerciale Toutelectric,

104 Cal. App. 4th 406 (2002) .................................................................................................. 3, 4
8
Arthur Schuman Inc. v. Entremont All. SAS,
9 No. CV-2016638, 2022 WL 4466623 (D.N.J. Sept. 26, 2022) ................................................. 10

10 Autodesk, Inc. v. ZWCAD Software Co.,

No. 5:14-CV-01409-EJD, 2015 WL 1928184 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2015) .................................. 4
11
Burdick v. Super. Ct.,
12 233 Cal. App. 4th 8 (2015) ........................................................................................................ 12
13 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,

14 471 U.S. 462 (1985)......................................................................................................... 3, 12, 14

15 Connex R.R. LLC v. AXA Corp. Sols. Assurance,

No. CV 16-02368, 2017 WL 3433542 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2017)...................................... passim
16
De Fernandez v. CMA CGM S.A.,
17 No. 21-CV-22778, 2022 WL 2713737 (S.D. Fla. July 12, 2022) ............................................. 10
18 Epic Commc’ns, Inc. v. Richwave Tech., Inc.

19 179 Cal. App. 4th 314 (2009) .................................................................................................... 13

20 Fighter’s Mkt., Inc. v. Champion Courage LLC,

207 F. Supp. 3d 1145 (S.D. Cal. 2016)................................................................................ 13, 14
21
In re Auto. Antitrust Cases I and II,
22 135 Cal. App. 4th 100 (2005) ................................................................................................ 5, 11
23 In re Auto. Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litig.,
358 F.3d 288 (3d Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................. 4, 11
24

25 In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig.,

No. C-07-5944, 2014 WL 5462496 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2014) ......................................... 7, 8, 10
26
In re Vitamin Antitrust Litig., Misc. No. 99-197, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20976 (D.D.C.
27 Aug. 15, 2000), adopted in part and denied in part, In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 120
F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 2000) ...................................................................................................... 7
28
-ii-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 1 Kirkland v. Super. Ct.,
95 Cal. App. 4th 92 (2002) .......................................................................................................... 3
2
Magnecomp Corp. v. Athene Co.,
3 209 Cal. App. 3d 526 (1989) ....................................................................................................... 3
4 MGI Digit. Tech. S.A. v. Duplo U.S.A.,
No. 8:22-cv-00979, 2023 WL 6814579 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2023) ................................ 4, 10, 11
5

6 Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan,

73 F. Supp. 3d 397, 402 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ......................................................................... 8, 9, 10
7
Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Comput. Corp.,
8 89 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (C.D. Cal. 2000) ....................................................................................... 14

9 NML Cap., Ltd. v. Republic of Arg.,

No. 03 CIV. 8845, 2013 WL 491522 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2013) ................................................... 6
10
Pennar Software Corp. v. Fortune 500 Sys. Ltd.,
11
No. 01-01734, 2001 WL 1319162 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2001) ................................................... 11
12
Proofpoint, Inc. v. Vade Secure, Inc.,
13 No. 19-cv-04238, 2020 WL 1911195 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020)............................................ 4, 9

14 Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants,

959 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1992) ..................................................................................................... 6
15
Rivelli v. Hemm,
16 67 Cal. App. 5th 380 (2021) .......................................................................................... 12, 13, 15
17
Société Nat. Ind. Aéro. v. U.S. Dist. Court,
18 482 U.S. 522 (1987)......................................................................................................... 3, 5, 6, 8

19 Synthes (U.S.A.) v. G.M. dos Reis Jr. Ind. Com. De Equip. Medico, No. CIV 07-CV-309-L,
2008 WL 81111 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008) ................................................................................ 4, 5
20
United States v. Buff,
21 636 F. Supp. 3d 441 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) ................................................................................... 9, 10
22
Walden v. Fiore,
23 571 U.S. 277 (2014)............................................................................................................... 3, 11

24 Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme,

433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................... 12
25
Zehia v. Super. Ct.,
26 45 Cal. App. 5th 543 (2020) ...................................................................................................... 13
27

28
-iii-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 1 Statutes & Rules

2 Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters of March

18, 1970 .............................................................................................................................. passim
3
Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2031.310(b)(1) ................................................................................................... 3
4
Code Code Civ. P. § 2017.010 .............................................................................................. 7, 13, 15
5
French Law No. 68-678 of July 26, 1968 ................................................................................. passim
6

9
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
-iv-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

3 Cross-Defendants Marc-Oliver Perrin, SAS Familles Perrin, and SAS Miraval Provence

4 (the “Perrin Cross-Defendants”) seek to evade their jurisdictional discovery obligations under

5 California law. After the Perrin Cross-Defendants specially appeared to challenge personal

6 jurisdiction, Nouvel, LLC served them with valid requests for production concerning jurisdiction.

7 In response, the Perrin Cross-Defendants refused to produce a single document.

8 The Perrin Cross-Defendants object that a foreign law, French Law No. 68-678 of July 26,

9 1968 (the “French Blocking Statute”), prohibits them from producing documents directly to
10 Nouvel. That objection is meritless. U.S. courts have consistently recognized that the French

11 Blocking Statute was enacted to provide French subjects “tactical weapons and bargaining chips in

12 foreign courts” and that it is not actually enforced against the targets of discovery requests. The

13 Perrin Cross-Defendants contend that in light of the French Blocking Statute, they can only

14 produce documents in response to a letter of request under the Hague Evidence Convention of

15 18 March 1970. But France has declared that it normally will not honor letters of request seeking

16 pretrial discovery of documents. And French judges reject requests that—like those at issue

17 here—seek documents on a category-by-category basis. In these circumstances, U.S. courts reject

18 objections based on the French Blocking Statute and order production under domestic law. This

19 Court should overrule the Perrin Cross-Defendants’ objections and order them to produce

20 documents under the California Code, which is the only means of assuring meaningful discovery.

21 The Perrin Cross-Defendants also refuse to produce documents responsive to certain of

22 Nouvel’s requests for production. For example, they refuse to produce documents concerning

23 their (1) tortious conduct aimed at California to exclude Nouvel from the governance of its sole

24 investment; (2) contracts with parties in California that relate to Nouvel’s claims; and (3) tortious

25 conduct aimed at California to assume control of the key asset in Nouvel’s sole investment. Those

26 requests properly seek material relevant to jurisdiction. This Court should overrule the Perrin

27 Cross-Defendants’ objections and order them to produce the limited discovery Nouvel seeks.

28

CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2 In 2008, Nouvel, a California LLC then owned by Angelina Jolie, and Mongo Bongo, a

3 California LLC owned by Brad Pitt, jointly purchased Chateau Miraval, an estate and vineyard in

4 the south of France, through the holding company Quimicum. (Nouvel’s First Amended Cross-

5 Complaint (“FACC”) ¶¶ 69–70, Mooney Decl. Ex. 8.) In 2013, Chateau Miraval partnered with

6 Cross-Defendant Familles Perrin to establish a 50-50 winemaking joint venture—Cross-Defendant

7 Miraval Provence—which is run by Cross-Defendant Marc Perrin. In the next decade, Miraval

8 Provence became highly profitable, generating tens of millions of euros per year in profits.

9 After Jolie filed for divorce against Pitt, the Perrin Cross-Defendants seized opportunities
10 to enrich themselves at Nouvel’s expense by working with Pitt and Mondo Bongo to intentionally

11 freeze Jolie and Nouvel out of Quimicum and Chateau Miraval. (FACC ¶¶ 15, 31, 98.) Having

12 done so, Cross-Defendant Familles Perrin secretly took control of the profitable joint venture

13 Miraval Provence by proposing and then implementing the Miraval Provence share transfer.

14 (FACC ¶ 151–53.) Specifically, Perrin suggested that Chateau Miraval transfer three shares of

15 Miraval Provence to Familles Perrin, thereby giving Familles Perrin outright control over Miraval

16 Provence. (Mooney Decl. ¶ 3.) The transfer was made expressly to prevent Nouvel from

17 exercising any governance rights with respect to Miraval Provence. (See id.) Cross-Defendant

18 Marc Perrin separately created companies with Mondo Bongo that systematically misappropriated

19 Chateau Miraval’s intellectual property and wealth for no compensation, thereby harming Nouvel.

20 (FACC ¶¶ 22–23, 109, 119, 121, 127.)

21 On August 9, 2023, Nouvel filed its First Amended Cross-Complaint, naming as Cross-
22 Defendants the Perrin Cross-Defendants. The Perrin Cross-Defendants moved to quash for lack of

23 personal jurisdiction on September 20, 2023. Nouvel served them with jurisdictional Requests for

24 Production on September 28, 2023. On October 30, 2023, the Perrin Cross-Defendants served

25 responses and objections, objecting on the basis that, among other things, the French Blocking

26 Statute prohibits them from providing discovery except through the Hague Evidence Convention.

27 (Mooney Decl. Ex. 1.) During meet-and-confers, the parties agreed on the scope of discovery for

28
-2-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 1 many requests, but reached an impasse on the objection based on the French Blocking Statue and

2 on the scope of RFP Nos. 5, 10–12, 15, 17, and 23. (Mooney Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 9.)

3 III. LEGAL STANDARD

4 A motion to compel should be granted where “good cause justif[ies] the discovery sought”.

5 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1). Good cause is established through a “fact-specific

6 showing of relevance”. Kirkland v. Super. Ct., 95 Cal. App. 4th 92, 98 (2002) (citation omitted).

7 California law authorizes jurisdictional discovery as a matter of right. Magnecomp Corp. v.

8 Athene Co., 209 Cal. App. 3d 526, 533 (1989) (“[P]laintiff[s] ha[ve] the right to conduct discovery

9 with regard to . . . jurisdiction[.]”). Specific personal jurisdiction may be established by a showing

10 of either purposeful direction or purposeful availment. See Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014);

11 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985).

12 IV. ARGUMENT

13 A. The California Code, not the Hague Convention, should govern discovery.

14 Under California law, discovery from foreign entities may proceed under either the

15 California Code of Civil Procedure or through the Hague Evidence Convention. Am. Home

16 Assurance Co. v. Societe Commerciale Toutelectric, 104 Cal. App. 4th 406, 428 (2002) (noting

17 that “Hague Convention procedures are only an optional method of pursuing discovery abroad”).

18 The U.S. Supreme Court has “decline[d] to hold as a blanket matter that comity requires resort to

19 Hague Evidence Convention procedures” and has established a balancing test to determine

20 whether to proceed under domestic law or Hague Convention procedures when seeking discovery

21 of foreign entities. Société Nat. Ind. Aéro. v. U.S. Dist. Court (“Aérospatiale”), 482 U.S. 522, 544

22 (1987). The factors considered in the balancing test include: “(1) the importance to the litigation

23 of the documents or other information requested; (2) the degree of specificity of the request;

24 (3) whether the information originated in the United States; (4) the availability of alternative

25 means of securing the information; and (5) the extent to which noncompliance with the request

26 would undermine important interests of the United States, or compliance with the request would

27 undermine important interests of the state where the information is located”. Id. at 544 n.28

28 (cleaned-up). The Ninth Circuit considers two additional factors: “the extent and the nature of the
-3-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 1 hardship that inconsistent enforcement would impose upon the foreign national and the extent to

2 which enforcement by action of either state can reasonably be expected to achieve compliance

3 with the rule prescribed by that state”. MGI Digit. Tech. S.A. v. Duplo U.S.A., No. 8:22-cv-00979,

4 2023 WL 6814579, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2023) (internal citation omitted). California state

5 courts follow the Aérospatiale framework. Am. Home Assurance, 104 Cal. App. 4th at 426.

6 The balancing test articulated in Aérospatiale applies to both merits discovery and

7 jurisdictional discovery. In re Auto. Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litig., 358 F.3d 288, 302–305 (3d

8 Cir. 2004) (“Automotive”) (citing cases); see also Synthes (U.S.A.) v. G.M. dos Reis Jr. Ind. Com.

9 De Equip. Medico, No. CIV 07-CV-309-L, 2008 WL 81111, at *3–4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008).
10 The party seeking application of the Hague Evidence Convention bears the burden of
11 demonstrating that discovery should proceed under the Convention. See Autodesk, Inc. v. ZWCAD

12 Software Co., No. 5:14-CV-01409-EJD, 2015 WL 1928184, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2015).

13 The seven Aérospatiale factors weigh decidedly in favor of ordering discovery under the
14 California Code. Nouvel’s requests are narrowly tailored and seek information that is crucial to

15 establish the Court’s jurisdiction over the Perrin Cross-Defendants. The Hague Evidence

16 Convention is not an effective alternative means of securing the information requested.

17 Noncompliance with the requests would undermine salient California interests, including

18 protecting California residents and companies from tortious conduct undertaken by foreign parties.

19 And although France may claim to have an interest in protecting commercial, financial, and

20 technical information within its borders from foreign discovery through the French Blocking

21 Statute, “[i]n analyzing the seven factors [], it should be noted that the French Blocking Statute at

22 issue here was originally created to block United States antitrust laws and it has not been strictly

23 enforced in France”. Proofpoint, Inc. v. Vade Secure, Inc., No. 19-cv-04238, 2020 WL 1911195,

24 at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020) (internal citations omitted). Because the French Blocking Statute

25 is not enforced, the Perrin Cross-Defendants would face minimal hardship if ordered to produce

26 discovery. On the other hand, this Court can enforce compliance with California discovery rules.

27 Factor 1: The discovery is critical to Nouvel’s ability to oppose the Perrin Cross-
28 Defendants’ motion to quash and pursue its claims. The discovery sought is critical to the case
-4-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 1 because it will determine whether Nouvel can pursue its claims against the Perrin Cross-

2 Defendants. The Perrin Cross-Defendants have moved to quash, and Nouvel’s right to

3 jurisdictional discovery arises from that motion. See In re Auto. Antitrust Cases I and II, 135 Cal.

4 App. 4th 100, 127 (2005) (“A plaintiff attempting to assert jurisdiction over a nonresident

5 defendant is entitled to an opportunity to conduct discovery of the jurisdictional facts necessary to

6 sustain its burden of proof.”). Nouvel seeks discovery concerning the Perrin Cross-Defendants’

7 contacts with California that relate and give rise to Nouvel’s claims. (See RFP Nos. 1–2 (trips to

8 California); RFP Nos. 3–4, 18 (communications with California residents); RFP Nos. 6, 10–12,

9 14–16, 19–20, 23 (tortious conduct expressly aimed at California and its in-forum effects); RFP
10 Nos. 5, 17, 21–22 (contracts and agreements with California parties related to Nouvel’s claims),

11 Mooney Decl. Ex. 10.) The requests seek documents that are directly relevant to assessing

12 whether the Perrin Cross-Defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of this court, which is a

13 “threshold issue which determines whether this case will continue” with respect to the Perrin

14 Cross-Defendants. Synthes, 2008 WL 81111, at *5. Because the discovery Nouvel seeks is

15 critical to the case, factor one weighs heavily in favor of applying California Code.

16 Factor 2: Nouvel’s RFPs regarding jurisdiction are narrowly tailored. The second

17 factor is the degree of specificity of the request. Aérospatiale, 482 U.S. at 544 n.28. “[W]here a

18 request is reasonable in scope and tailored to the discovery sought (even if it seeks a great deal of

19 information), an objection based only on the request’s illegality will not favor nondisclosure.”

20 Connex R.R. LLC v. AXA Corp. Sols. Assurance, No. CV 16-02368, 2017 WL 3433542, at *12

21 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2017). All of Nouvel’s requests are narrowly tailored to the Perrin Cross-

22 Defendants’ contacts with California that relate to Nouvel’s claims (see Mooney Decl. Ex. 10):

23 • RFP Nos. 1–2 concern trips to California related to Nouvel’s claims;

24 • RFP Nos. 3–4 and 18 concern communications with California residents related to
25 Nouvel’s claims;

26 • RFP Nos. 6, 10–12, 14–16, and 19–20 concerns the in-forum effect of tortious
27 conduct giving rise to Nouvel’s claims;

28
-5-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 1 • RFP Nos. 5, 17, 21, and 22 concern contracts with California parties with whom
2 the Perrin Cross-Defendants conspired against Nouvel or that relate to Nouvel’s

3 claims.

4 These requests plainly seek relevant information. Id. at *13 (“[T]he focus of this factor is

5 not on the number of discovery requests but on their specificity”). In addition, Nouvel has spent

6 ten weeks meeting and conferring with the Perrin Cross-Defendants to narrow the scope of

7 Nouvel’s requests and has moved to compel only for a narrowed subset of narrowed requests.

8 (Mooney Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 9.) The Perrin Cross-Defendants have agreed not oppose the vast majority

9 of the requests if this Court orders them to produce it. (Mooney Decl. Ex. 9.) That is telling
10 evidence that Nouvel’s requests are narrowly tailored to seek only those documents relevant to

11 jurisdiction. Therefore, this factor is weighs in favor of proceeding under the California Code.

12 Factor 3: The origin of the information sought does not weigh against proceeding
13 under the California Code of Civil Procedure. The third factor the Court considers is whether

14 the information originated in the United States. Aérospatiale, 482 U.S. at 544 n.28. Courts have

15 held this factor is “not determinative”. NML Cap., Ltd. v. Republic of Arg., No. 03 CIV. 8845,

16 2013 WL 491522, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2013). While Nouvel seeks information that may be

17 “located” in France, Nouvel’s requests all relate to the Perrin Cross-Defendants’ contacts with and

18 ties to California, and many responsive documents likely originated there. Therefore, this factor

19 is, at best, neutral and does not weigh against proceeding under the California Code.

20 Factor 4: No effective alternative means of obtaining the discovery is available. The

21 fourth factor is the availability of alternative means of securing the information. Aérospatiale, 482

22 U.S. at 544 n.28. “An alternative means must be substantially equivalent to the requested

23 discovery.” Connex, 2017 WL 3433542, at *14 (citing Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling

24 Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1475 (9th Cir. 1992)). The alternative means that the Perrin Counter-

25 Defendants propose, the Hague Evidence Convention, is not substantially equivalent to discovery

26 under the California Code. France has declared a reservation in accordance with Article 23 of the

27 Hague Evidence Convention stating that “[l]etters of Request issued for the purpose of obtaining

28 pre-trial discovery of documents as known in Common Law countries will not be executed”.
-6-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 1 (Mooney Decl. Ex. 11) Although France qualified this reservation in 1987, stating that it will not

2 apply “when the requested documents are enumerated limitatively in the Letter of Request and

3 have a direct and precise link with the object of the procedure” (id.), the scope of discovery

4 available from France through the Hague Convention is substantially narrower than that available

5 under California law, which allows discovery of any documents “relevant to . . . the determination

6 of any motion”. Cal. Code Civ. Pr. § 2017.010.

7 “The hostility of French law to pretrial discovery of documents . . . [is] likely to render the

8 Letters of Request procedures ineffective.” In re Vitamin Antitrust Litig., Misc. No. 99-197, 2000

9 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20976, at *77–78 (D.D.C. Aug. 15, 2000), adopted in part and denied in part,
10 In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 120 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 2000). In light of France’s reservation

11 under Article 23, even as qualified, “the standard for discovery in France under the Hague

12 Convention is narrower than that under the FRCP”. Connex, 2017 WL 3433542, at *14; see In re

13 Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., No. C-07-5944, 2014 WL 5462496, at *5 (N.D. Cal.

14 Oct. 23, 2014) (finding the “nominally available” Hague Convention procedures “unavailable as a

15 practical matter” for request directed to France). (See also Mooney Decl. Ex. 12, American Bar

16 Association, Report on Survey of Experience of U.S. Lawyers with the Hague Evidence

17 Convention Letter of Request Procedures at 9 (French judges in most cases deny document

18 requests made under the Hague Evidence Convention in their entirety).) Proceeding under the

19 Hague Convention is also inefficient, taking up to six months. (Mooney Decl. Ex. 13.)

20 French caselaw also demonstrates that the Hague Evidence Convention is not a viable
21 “means of securing the information” sought where, as here, a party seeks the production of

22 categories of documents, as is typical under California procedure. For example, in 2010 the Court

23 of Appeal of Paris held that requests made under the Hague Convention for “[a]ll documents

24 concerning the sale by Alstom of cruise ships to Renaissance between August 3, 1999, and

25 August 12, 2003” and “[a]ll documents concerning any guarantee (total or partial) granted by

26 Alstom in connection with financing granted by the bank to Renaissance from August 3, 1999 to

27 August 12, 2003” were “not precisely defined” and were “excessively broad”. (Heinz Decl. ¶ 5;

28 Mooney Decl. Ex. 5.) The court then rejected the requests in light of France’s reservation under
-7-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 1 Article 23 of the Convention. Similarly, in 2020, the Judicial Tribunal of Saint-Étienne invoked

2 France’s reservation under Article 23 to reject requests for documents made through the Hague

3 Convention on the basis that they were “formulated in general and imprecise terms, relate to a

4 large number of documents, and do not include any specific timeframes”. (Mooney Decl. Ex. 6.)

5 And even if the parties stipulate to the scope of discovery, a French judge may, sua sponte, reject

6 any request that the judge deems likely to prejudice the sovereignty or security of the French

7 Republic or infringe the secrecy interests of a French business. (Heintz Decl. ¶ 6.)

8 In the present case, the Hague Convention is not a “substantially equivalent” means of

9 obtaining discovery given France’s hostility to pre-trial discovery. Therefore, “the lack of
10 alternative means for obtaining much of the information sought weighs strongly in favor of

11 production”. CRT, 2014 WL 5462496, at *6.

12 Factor 5: California has an interest in vindicating California plaintiffs’ rights. The

13 fifth factor contemplated by the Aérospatiale test is “the extent to which noncompliance with the

14 request would undermine important interests of the United States, or compliance with the request

15 would undermine important interests of the state where the information is located”. Aérospatiale,

16 482 U.S. at 544 n.28. The state of California “has a substantial interest in fully and fairly

17 adjudicating matters before its courts”. In re Air Cargo Shipping Servs. Antitrust Litig., 278

18 F.R.D. 51, 54 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (citation omitted). “That interest is only realized if the parties have

19 access to relevant discovery.” Id. Moreover, California “has a strong interest in vindicating the

20 rights” of California plaintiffs. Connex, 2017 WL 3433542, at *16. Here, Nouvel, a California

21 LLC, alleges that the Perrin Cross-Defendants expressly aimed their conduct at California in an

22 effort to harm Nouvel. Thus, noncompliance with the discovery requests would undermine

23 important California interests.

24 France has asserted an interest in protecting commercial, financial, and technical

25 information within its borders from foreign discovery through the French Blocking Statute.

26 (Mooney Decl. Ex. 2, (“French Blocking Statute”), Article 1 bis.) Yet France does not actively

27 enforce the statute, calling into question the sincerity of this purported interest. See Motorola

28 Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 73 F. Supp. 3d 397, 402 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), on reconsideration of, 293 F.R.D.
-8-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 1 595 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“[T]he extent to which the relevant country has actually enforced the

2 prohibition is a strong indicator of the strength of the state interest.”) Indeed, in the past seven

3 decades, France has enforced the criminal sanction in the statute only once (Heinz Decl. at ¶ 4; see

4 also Mooney Decl. Ex. 4), and then in a different context. That case, In re Advocat Christopher X,

5 concerned a French attorney who made false statements to a potential French witness to obtain

6 evidence in a pending California case. Air Cargo, 278 F.R.D. at 54. Christopher X “did not

7 involve discovery responsive to any requests made by the parties in the California case or ordered

8 by the court there”. Id. No French target of discovery requests has ever faced criminal

9 prosecution for complying with those requests. (Heintz Decl. ¶ 4) Accordingly, the “French
10 interest is minimal” because “[w]hile the French have stated a resistance to foreign discovery and

11 have enacted their blocking statute, the reality of the matter, as noted above, is that it is almost

12 never enforced”. United States v. Buff, 636 F. Supp. 3d 441, 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2022),

13 reconsideration denied, No. 19-CV-5549, 2023 WL 3765999 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2023).

14 The legislative history of the statute further demonstrates its pretextual nature. “The
15 legislative history of the statute gives strong indications that it was never expected or intended to

16 be enforced against French subjects but was intended rather to provide them with tactical weapons

17 and bargaining chips in foreign courts.” Air Cargo, 278 F.R.D. at 54. See also Proofpoint, 2020

18 WL 1911195, at *5 (“[T]he French blocking statute was not aimed at protecting the state, but at

19 merely protecting French corporations from foreign discovery requests.”) (cleaned up).

20 In sum, the California interest in adjudicating disputes before California courts and
21 providing parties access to discovery outweighs France’s pretextual interest in protecting

22 information stored in France. “France’s interest in having its corporations avoid the

23 ‘intrusiveness’ of American pretrial discovery rules is of a lesser quantum of importance than

24 America’s judicial interest in providing fairness in the discovery process to litigants in her courts.”

25 Proofpoint, 2020 WL 1911195, at *5; see also Connex, 2017 WL 3433542, at *15 (“[France’s]

26 interests must be weighed against the United States’ interests in vindicating the rights of American

27 plaintiffs and in enforcing the judgments of its courts. The former interest has been described as

28 ‘substantial,’ and the latter as ‘vital’.”) (cleaned up).

-9-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 1 Therefore, this factor weighs heavily in favor of proceeding under the California Code.

2 Factor 6: The Perrin Cross-Defendants face no meaningful hardship. In addition to

3 the five Aérospatiale factors, the Ninth Circuit also considers “the extent and the nature of the

4 hardship that inconsistent enforcement would impose upon the foreign national”. MGI Digit.,

5 2023 WL 6814579, at *3 (internal citation omitted). The Perrin Cross-Defendants face no realistic

6 hardship in complying with California law because “the [French] Blocking Statute does not

7 subject defendants to a realistic risk of prosecution”. CRT, 2014 WL 5462496, at *6 (citing

8 cases); see also Motorola, 73 F. Supp. 3d at 403 (“In practice, . . . it appears that when a foreign

9 court orders production of French documents even though the producing party has raised the
10 ‘excuse’ of the French blocking statute, the French authorities do not, in fact, prosecute or

11 otherwise punish the producing party”). The legislative history of the statute confirms this: a

12 report recommending the statute’s adoption stated the statute was meant to “offer French nationals

13 ‘a legal excuse for refusing to supply the information and documents demanded of them [and] a

14 judicial weapon which will at least make it possible for them to gain time’”. Id. (cleaned up).

15 In early 2022, the French Blocking Statute was amended to require a party in France who
16 receives discovery requests in a foreign litigation to submit them to the service de l’information

17 stratégique et de la sécurité économiques (SISSE), which will then issue a notice about whether

18 the requests are covered by the statute. (Decree No. 2022-207 of Feb. 18, 2022 (Mooney Decl.

19 Ex. 14).) However, there is no evidence that France’s practice of not enforcing the statue has

20 changed since 2022. (See Heintz Decl. ¶ 4.) U.S. courts have continued to reject objections to

21 discovery requests based on the French Blocking Statute since 2022. See Buff, 636 F. Supp. 3d at

22 448–450; De Fernandez v. CMA CGM S.A., No. 21-CV-22778, 2022 WL 2713737, at *10–12

23 (S.D. Fla. July 12, 2022); Arthur Schuman Inc. v. Entremont All. SAS, No. CV-2016638, 2022 WL

24 4466623, at *2–4 (D.N.J. Sept. 26, 2022). The amendments to the French Blocking Statute do not

25 change the fact that a French party faces no real hardship in making discovery. Therefore, this

26 factor weighs in favor of proceeding under the California Code.

27 Factor 7: The Perrin Cross-Defendants must comply with this Court’s orders. The
28 other additional factor considered by the Ninth Circuit is “the extent to which enforcement by
-10-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 1 action of either state can reasonably be expected to achieve compliance with the rule prescribed by

2 that state”. MGI Digit., 2023 WL 6814579, at *3 (internal citation omitted). Here, enforcement of

3 an order that the Perrin Cross-Defendants produce discovery is likely to lead to compliance

4 because the Perrin Cross-Defendants risk forfeiting the opportunity to challenge jurisdiction if

5 they fail to comply. The Court has jurisdiction over the Perrin Cross-Defendants at least to

6 determine whether they are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court—the exact purpose of

7 Nouvel’s requests. In re Auto. Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litig., 358 F.3d at 303 (“At this stage,

8 where the appellants have voluntarily appeared in the court to challenge jurisdiction and

9 jurisdictional discovery is pending”, the court “indisputably has jurisdiction to determine whether
10 there is personal jurisdiction upon completion of jurisdictional discovery.”). And the Perrin

11 Cross-Defendants risk serious sanctions for not complying with this Court’s orders. See Pennar

12 Software Corp. v. Fortune 500 Sys. Ltd., No. 01-01734, 2001 WL 1319162, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct.

13 25, 2001) (“Courts have imposed severe sanctions” for jurisdictional discovery misconduct,

14 “including orders establishing personal jurisdiction over a recalcitrant defendant for refusing to

15 comply with discovery requests.”). Because this Court can enforce its discovery orders against the

16 Perrin Cross-Defendants, this factor supports proceeding under the California Code.

17 B. The Court should compel the Perrin Cross-Defendants to produce documents

18 in response to Nouvel’s RFP Nos. 5, 10–12, 15, 17, and 23.
19 In addition to overruling the Perrin Cross-Defendants’ objections based on the French
20 Blocking Statute, the Court should order them to produce documents responsive to Nouvel RFPs

21 5, 10–12, 15, 17 and 23.

22 “A plaintiff attempting to assert jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is entitled to an

23 opportunity to conduct discovery of the jurisdictional facts necessary to sustain its burden of

24 proof.” In re Auto. Antitrust Cases I & II, 135 Cal. App. 4th at 127; 1880 Corp. v. Super. Ct., 57

25 Cal. 2d 840, 843 (1962) (allowing jurisdictional discovery “relevant to the subject matter of a

26 motion to quash”). There are two standards for exercising specific jurisdiction over nonresident

27 defendants: purposeful direction and purposeful availment. Under Walden v. Fiore, the

28 purposeful direction standard looks to the effects of the defendant’s conduct on the forum state,
-11-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 1 referred to as the “effects test”. See 571 U.S. at 290–91. California courts have interpreted the

2 effects test to require a showing that: “(1) the defendant committed an intentional tort; (2) the

3 plaintiff felt the brunt of the harm caused by that tort in the forum state such that the forum state

4 was the focal point of the plaintiff’s injury; and (3) the defendant expressly aimed the tortious

5 conduct at the forum state such that the forum state was the focal point of the tortious activity.”

6 Burdick v. Super. Ct., 233 Cal. App. 4th 8, 19–20 (2015). The second test, purposeful availment,

7 is met when “the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities

8 within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Burger King, 471

9 U.S. at 475. Nouvel’s RFPs are relevant to jurisdiction under both standards. “The case-linked
10 jurisdictional analysis is intensely fact-specific. Indeed, the test for personal jurisdiction is not

11 susceptible of mechanical application. . . .” Rivelli v. Hemm, 67 Cal. App. 5th 380, 392–93 (2021)

12 (cleaned up); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d

13 1199, 1206 (9th Cir. 2006) (combination of availment and direction may establish jurisdiction).

14 Here, Nouvel’s requests for production readily meet the good cause standard because each
15 is narrowly tailored to seek information relevant under one of the two jurisdictional standards.

16 1. RFP Nos. 10-12 and 15 (Excluding Nouvel from Governance).

17 Nouvel RFP Nos. 10–12 and 15 seek all documents and communications concerning the
18 Perrin Cross-Defendants’ efforts to thwart Nouvel from supervising and participating in the

19 governance of its sole investment, including by imposing a shareholder deadlock and by

20 withholding dividends, which they exploited to transfer the investment’s wealth and assets to

21 entities controlled by themselves and Mr. Pitt. (See FACC ¶¶ 142, 154, 217.) The Perrin Cross-

22 Defendants worked with Pitt and Mondo Bongo, both California residents, to freeze Jolie and

23 Nouvel, also California residents, out of their jointly owned business as part of a scheme to

24 plunder its assets. (See FACC ¶¶ 98, 139, 167, 186, 219, 230.) The Perrin Cross-Defendants also

25 acted in concert with Pitt to illegally transfer value to Pitt and Mondo Bongo as part of Pitt’s

26 scheme to exact revenge on Jolie after their divorce. (FACC ¶¶ 14–21.)

27 These efforts were expressly aimed at Jolie and Nouvel in California, and documents
28 concerning these efforts establish jurisdiction under the purposeful direction test. Courts post-
-12-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 1 Walden have found “express aiming” when a foreign defendant knew the results of the conduct

2 would be felt in the forum state. See Fighter’s Mkt., Inc. v. Champion Courage LLC, 207 F. Supp.

3 3d 1145, 1155 (S.D. Cal. 2016) (sustaining case-linked jurisdiction over foreign defendants that

4 “dilute[ed] Plaintiff’s trademarks, reduc[ed] Plaintiff’s revenue, and diminish[ed] Plaintiff’s

5 goodwill” by infringing plaintiffs’ trademarks abroad). Directing actions at the forum state “for

6 the alleged purpose of interfering with the relationship of California residents” suffices for

7 reaching out into the forum state. Zehia v. Super. Ct., 45 Cal. App. 5th 543, 558 (2020).

8 Yet the Perrin Cross-Defendants refuse to produce any internal notes or correspondence

9 with parties in Europe that do not expressly discuss effects on Jolie or Nouvel in response to RFP
10 Nos. 10–12 and 15. That limitation is improper. All documents concerning imposing the

11 governance deadlock and withholding dividends from Nouvel are relevant to jurisdiction because

12 that conduct was inherently directed at California. See Code Civ. Pr. § 2017.010; Rivelli, 67 Cal.

13 App. 5th at 392–93. Consistent with this Court’s prior order compelling the production of

14 jurisdictional discovery (Mooney Decl. Ex. 15), the Perrin Cross-Defendants should be ordered to

15 produce all documents responsive to Nouvel’s RFP Nos. 10–12 and 15.

16 2. RFP Nos. 5 and 17 (Contracts with California).

17 Nouvel seeks documents and communications concerning the Perrin Cross-Defendants’
18 contracts with parties in California that relate to business entities involved in the Perrin Cross-

19 Defendants’ efforts to misappropriate wealth from Nouvel. (Mooney Decl. Ex. 10; Separate

20 Statement at 23–30, 73–78.) These documents are relevant to jurisdiction because they show that

21 the Perrin Cross-Defendants availed themselves of the right to do business in California in a

22 manner related to Nouvel’s claims. Epic Commc’ns, Inc. v. Richwave Tech., Inc. 179 Cal. App.

23 4th 314, 329 (2009) (contracts with a California party related to the misappropriation of

24 intellectual property sufficed to establish personal jurisdiction). The Perrin Cross-Defendants

25 contend that they should not be required to produce responsive negotiations histories, documents

26 about contractual performance, or documents about contracts that have yet to be executed.

27 (Mooney Decl. Ex. 9.) That refusal is improper because those documents evidence negotiations,

28 terms and a course of dealing with California parties that is relevant to jurisdiction. See Burger
-13-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 1 King, 471 U.S. at 479 (“[P]rior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with the

2 terms of the contract and the parties’ actual course of dealing [] must be evaluated in determining

3 whether the defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum.”).

4 Negotiation histories, even those pertaining to unexecuted contracts, can show that the Perrin

5 Cross-Defendants proactively pursued an ongoing course of business dealing with California

6 related to Nouvel’s claims. Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Comput. Corp., 89 F. Supp. 2d 1154,

7 1159 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (“[S]olicitation of business in the forum state may constitute purposeful

8 availment if that solicitation results in contract negotiations or the transaction of business.”)

9 (cleaned up). The Court should order the Perrin Cross-Defendants to produce documents
10 responsive to the full scope of Nouvel’s requests. (See Mooney Decl. Ex. 15.)

11 3. RFP No. 23 (Miraval Provence share transfer).

12 Nouvel seeks all documents and communications concerning Cross-Defendant Familles
13 Perrin assuming control of Cross-Defendant Miraval Provence. Miraval Provence is the key

14 revenue-generating asset in Nouvel’s sole investment. (See FACC ¶ 74.) Cross-Defendant Perrin

15 himself suggested to Pitt that Familles Perrin take control of the asset, and Pitt agreed. (Mooney

16 Decl. ¶ 3.) Perrin expressly targeted Nouvel with this transfer, which was undertaken in response

17 to a change in control of Nouvel and fears of a “hostile takeover” by Nouvel. (Id.)

18 Documents concerning the transfer are therefore relevant to jurisdiction. The Perrin Cross-
19 Defendants expressly aimed their conduct at California because the transfer was expressly

20 intended to freeze Nouvel, a California resident, out of the governance of Miraval Provence.

21 (FACC ¶¶ 150–154; Mooney Decl. ¶ 3.) See Fighter’s Mkt., 207 F. Supp. 3d 1145 at 1152. “It is

22 foreseeable that the loss will be inflicted . . . where the [rights] holder has its principal place of

23 business.” Id. at 1154–55. The harm in California was not only foreseeable, but also intended.

24 The Perrin Cross-Defendants made the transfer for the purpose of preventing Nouvel from

25 enjoying equal governance. Yet the Perrin Cross-Defendants refuse to produce their internal notes

26 and correspondence with parties in Europe about the transfer that do not expressly discusses

27 effects on Nouvel. (Mooney Decl. Ex. 9.) This limitation is improper. The transfer was

28 inherently targeted at California, so all documents about it are relevant to jurisdiction. See Code
-14-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 1 Civ. Pr. § 2017.010; Rivelli, 67 Cal. App. 5th at 392–93. This Court should order the Perrin

2 Cross-Defendants to produce documents responsive to the full scope of Nouvel’s request. (See

3 Mooney Decl. Ex. 15.)

4 4. The Perrin Cross-Defendants Cannot Rely on Other Parties to Satisfy

5 the Perrin Cross-Defendants’ Discovery Obligations for Them

6 The Perrin Cross-Defendants have taken the position that the production of documents

7 from other parties in this case—Brad Pitt, Mondo Bongo, and Warren Grant—should suffice for

8 Nouvel to oppose their motion to quash. (Mooney Decl., Ex. 9.) The Perrin Cross-Defendants are

9 mistaken. Nouvel’s requests directed to other Cross-Defendants are substantially different in

10 scope, time and custodians from the materials needed to oppose the Perrin Cross-Defendants’

11 motion to quash. The other Cross-Defendants’ production was made in response to a different set

12 of RFPs and excludes any documents dated after 2022. (Mooney Decl. ¶ 21, Exs. 16–17.) It

13 therefore excludes a great deal of the information Nouvel seeks concerning jurisdiction discovery.

14 For example, the other Cross-Defendants’ production is limited to their own documents and

15 communications only, so it excludes the Perrin Cross-Defendants’ internal communications, notes,

16 written records, and communications with third parties. The other Cross-Defendants’ production

17 also excludes information related to several key allegations in Nouvel’s First Amended Cross-

18 Complaint. For example, the production includes no documents concerning the Quimicum

19 shareholder deadlock that harmed Nouvel by freezing it out of the governance of its sole asset (see

20 Mooney Decl. Ex. 10, RFP Nos. 10, 15, and 16; FACC ¶¶ 95–99, 168–82, 184–85, 184, 187) or

21 the creation of entities by Perrin and Mondo Bongo designed to harm Nouvel by siphoning off the

22 assets of Nouvel’s subsidiary, Chateau Miraval (see Mooney Decl. Ex. 10, RFP Nos. 18–20, 23;

23 FACC ¶¶ 109, 126, 130, 167) because it was not made in response to RFPs concerning these

24 topics. (Mooney Decl. Ex. 16.) In short, the other Cross-Defendants’ production is inadequate for

25 Nouvel to oppose the Perrin Cross-Defendants’ motion to quash because it excludes many

26 documents relevant to jurisdiction.

27 V. CONCLUSION

28 For the foregoing reasons, Nouvel respectfully requests that this Court grant its motion.
-15-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 1 Dated: January 22, 2024

2 Respectfully submitted,

3 By: /s/ Jonathan Mooney

4 CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Keith R. Hummel (admitted pro hac vice)
5
(N.Y. Bar No. 2430668)
6 Justin C. Clarke (admitted pro hac vice)
(N.Y. Bar No. 5076096)
7 Jonathan Mooney (admitted pro hac vice)
(N.Y. Bar No. 5648191)
8 Worldwide Plaza
825 Eighth Avenue
9
New York, NY 10019
10 Telephone: (212) 474-1000
Facsimile: (212) 474-3700
11
LTL ATTORNEYS LLP
12 Joe Tuffaha (Bar No. 253723)
13 joe.tuffaha@ltlattorneys.com
Prashanth Chennakesavan
14 (Bar No. 284022)
prashanth.chennakesavan@ltlattorneys.com
15 LTL ATTORNEYS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1400
16 Los Angeles, CA 90071
17 Telephone: (213) 612-8900
Facsimile: (213) 612-3773
18
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant
19 NOUVEL, LLC
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
-16-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PERRIN CROSS-DEFENDANTS
 012345689 4161 91231356
95993514
993514
993514
 !"!#" " "$
99351489
114119623931939149
59%2&93
''(8#"#$
59869
)**+,-88.956-+%/0*%+01*0.956-
64 53
%1296.**293944545
*1514
(546916123129795394"
59889
53 !'#'!.9##+
(52
0(00
%2&9313114

114
114119623931939149
;:9 94269 <
=:5496 <
99351413
>?@A
  ! "!!#$ %7 &3874
'8"$47(87"$
)1851 "8 3$1*01 4871 +'248, 8- 1 .5
/%528
$1851 %7 "
! !"!$ %4&34
'8"01,&48  !"$
)1851 "8 3$1*01 4871 +'248, 8- 1 .5
/%528
$1851 "

012345678 1 47 11654567844