Xcentric Ventures LLC v. Karsen Limited et al

Filing 47

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 39 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Defendant is ordered to comply with plaintiff's narrowed first request for production. Defendant has agreed to comply with plaintiff's fourth request for production and therefore the motion to compel on this issue is denied as moot. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 07/23/12.(JAMA)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Xcentric Ventures, LLC,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
Karsen, Ltd., et al.,
13
Defendants.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 11-01055-PHX-FJM
ORDER

15
16

The court has before it plaintiff's motion to compel (doc. 39), defendant Eugene

17

Selihov's response (doc. 42), and plaintiff's reply (doc. 43). Underlying this discovery

18

dispute is a battle between consumer complaint websites.

19

www.ripoffreport.com while defendant Selihov owns www.scaminformer.com. Plaintiff

20

asserts copyright and trademark claims against defendant, alleging that he has copied

21

protected materials from plaintiff's website onto his own website.

Plaintiff owns

22

Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., a party "may obtain discovery regarding

23

any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Relevance "has

24

been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead

25

to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case." Oppenheimer

26

Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351, 98 S. Ct. 2380, 2389 (1978).

27

Plaintiff's first request for production originally sought "a full and complete copy of

28

the entire contents of the website www.scaminformer.com including all source code, posts,

1

author information, server logs, etc." Plaintiff later narrowed its request to records reflecting

2

any contact information defendant has for the authors of specific pages on

3

www.scaminformer.com and information relating to the posting date of specific pages. In

4

defendant's response, he objects to plaintiff's original request for production but does not

5

object to or even mention plaintiff's later, narrower request. Defendant has shown no reason

6

why the information requested would be irrelevant or impose an undue burden on him. The

7

information sought is highly relevant to plaintiff's claim that defendant copied material from

8

its website.

9

Plaintiff narrowed its fourth request for production and defendant agrees to respond

10

to the revised request. Plaintiff's motion to compel a response to its fourth request for

11

production is therefore moot.

12
13

The parties are reminded that the court's Rule 16 scheduling order limits motions to
compel, responses, and replies to two pages each.

14

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING in part and DENYING in part plaintiff's motion to

15

compel. (Doc. 39). Defendant is ordered to comply with plaintiff's narrowed first request

16

for production. Defendant has agreed to comply with plaintiff's fourth request for production

17

and therefore the motion to compel on this issue is denied as moot.

18

DATED this 23rd day of July, 2012.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-