Beijing Meishe Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. TikTok Inc., 3:23-cv-06012

Beijing Meishe Network Technology Co., Ltd. (Meishe) is the plaintiff in a trade secrets and copyright litigation against TikTok and others.
Defendants sought discovery related to Xin Ao-Te/China Digital Video (XAT/CDV), a nonparty entity alleged to be a Meishe affiliate that developed the relevant source code and employed a key individual.
XAT is Meishe’s largest shareholder (owning ~30%) and previously provided employees and technological resources to Meishe; Meishe was spun out from an XAT division.
Defendants have repeatedly requested documents and information related to XAT from Meishe, asserting Meishe has control or influence over XAT; Meishe has only partially complied and argues XAT is a nonparty beyond its control.
A Texas court previously ordered Meishe to produce any written requests to XAT for documents (and responses), but denied—without prejudice—requests to compel Meishe to obtain all XAT documents.
This order arises from unresolved disputes over whether Meishe must produce more XAT-related documents, describe its relationship with XAT, and testify about the scope of its ability to obtain XAT documents.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must Meishe produce all written requests to XAT and XAT’s responses?	Already produced all written/WeChat requests, nothing further exists.	Meishe has not clearly produced transmittal/WeChat records; must produce all.	Motion GRANTED IN PART: Meishe must provide all such records or declarations describing efforts to obtain them.
Must Meishe obtain and produce XAT documents based on "control"?	No current legal/practical control over XAT; only partial ownership and separate entities.	Meishe’s past ability to get and produce XAT documents shows "control."	Motion DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: Defendants did not meet burden to show "control."
Must Meishe describe its legal and corporate relationship with XAT?	Has produced some documents showing relationship; further responses are unnecessary.	Has not substantively described relationship; did not comply with discovery requests.	Motion GRANTED IN PART: Meishe must serve declarations describing full relationship history and produce relevant documents, except litigation strategy/financial interest.
Must Meishe identify who has input into litigation strategy or financial interest?	Already denied by Texas court, and that ruling is final.	Seek further responses regarding parties with input/interest in litigation.	Motion DENIED IN PART: Meishe need not provide further responses on these subparts.

United States v. Int’l Union of Petroleum and Indus. Workers, AFL-CIO, 870 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1989) (burden for establishing "control" over documents for discovery lies with the requesting party)
In re Citric Acid Litig., 191 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 1999) (control requires party has legal right to obtain documents from nonparty, not mere practical ability)
Genentech, Inc. v. Trs. of the Univ. of Pa., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128526 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2011) (subsidiary's relationship with parent does not necessarily confer discovery control)
Dugan v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126369 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2013) (subsidiary must have legal right to obtain documents from parent before being compelled)