in the united states district court for the district of delaware

At this stage, the impact of Nicastro, if any, on the long-standing and well-established
Delaware jurisprudence relating to stream-of-commerce theory is unclear. As such, Nicastro
does not alter the Court's conclusion that Plaintiffs stream-of-commerce theory is not clearly
frivolous, and thus that some limited jurisdictional discovery is appropriate. See, e.g., Chi Mei,
395 F. 3d at 1322 (holding that a plaintiff is entitled to jurisdictional discovery when the factual
record is inadequate to analyze stream-of-commerce theory).
2. Scope of Jurisdictional Discovery
Defendants expressed particular concern about the breadth of Plaintiffs requested
discovery, which Defendants assert "far exceeds any jurisdictional issues in this case and aims
straight for the merits of [Plaintiffs] trade secret and contract claims." (D.I. 36 at 13-14) While
Plaintiff disagrees with that proposition, Plaintiff also asserts that "[t]his is not the appropriate
time to address the scope of jurisdictional discovery, as the issue involved in this motion is
whether jurisdictional discovery is warranted." (D.I. 42 at 10) Given the concerns raised by the
Defendants, the Court's determination as outlined above, and for the sake of efficiency, the Court
has outlined the permissible topics for jurisdictional discovery in an accompanying order. These
topics relate generally to IRP's and AlphaPet's sales and distribution of PET products in the U.S.
and Delaware. 22 See Power Integrations, 547 F. Supp. 2d at 376-77 (outlining seven categories
of jurisdictional discovery based on the stream-of-commerce theory in light of "overly broad"
requests by plaintiff).
22
The Court notes that these topics are similar to those for which Defendants had
previously indicated that they would be willing to provide jurisdictional discovery. (D.I. 34, ex.
I; D.I. 36 at 13 n.lO)
38