CSPC Dophen Corporation v. Hu

Filing 81

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 6/25/2018 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 70 Motion to Dismiss is SUBMITTED without oral argument. Plaintiff's 73 motion to compel is GRANTED. Within 21 days of the date of this order, defen dant shall identify the password or login information for the following email accounts: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; lallen@dop henbiomed.com; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; and [e-mail]. Plaintiff shall hire a vendor to remove or segregate legitimate attorney-client privileged communications in these email accounts, based on defendant's identification of the email addresses of his former attorneys, before production to the plaintiff. The production and information found in these accounts shall be governed by the stipulated protective order entered in this action. The 6/29/2018 hearing of plaintiff's motion to dismiss and motion to compel is VACATED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CSPC DOPHEN CORPORATION,

12

No. 2:17-cv-1895 MCE DB PS

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ZHIXIANG HU,

15

ORDER

Defendant.

16
17
18
19

Defendant is proceeding in this action pro se. (ECF No. 68.) Accordingly, this action has
been referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).
On May 30, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss defendant’s counterclaims. (ECF

20

No. 70.) That motion is noticed for hearing before the undersigned on June 29, 2018. Pursuant to

21

Local Rule 230(g), that motion is submitted upon the record and the June 29, 2018 hearing is

22

vacated.

23

On June 8, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery responses. (ECF No. 73.)

24

That motion is also noticed for hearing before the undersigned on June 29, 2018. Pursuant to

25

Local Rule 251, the parties filed a joint statement on June 22, 2018. (ECF No. 78.)

26

Plaintiff’s motion seeks to compel defendant’s response to Interrogatory No. 17. (ECF

27

No. 78 at 4.) Interrogatory No. 17 asks defendant to “[i]dentify the password or login information

28

for the Email Accounts.” (Id.) The term “Email Accounts” is defined as the following accounts:
1

1

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],

2

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],

3

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],

4

[e-mail], [e-mail], and [e-mail].1 (ECF

5

No. 78-2 at 3.)
Defendant, again, argues that plaintiff is “using [the] discovery process to seek control of

6
7

plaintiff’s property.” (ECF No. 78 at 7.) As the undersigned previously explained to defendant,

8

the issue is not whether the evidence sought by plaintiff is found on something purchased by or

9

for the defendant, but whether defendant is in possession of relevant evidence. (ECF No. 77 at 2.)

10

Plaintiff has alleged defendant formed a secret entity, Dophen Biomed, Inc., to engage in various

11

improper activities. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) According to the declaration of Jasmine Xiong, submitted

12

by defendant in support of his opposition, defendant used [e-mail] for

13

business related to the plaintiff. (ECF No. 78-9 at 2.) Which defendant concedes. (ECF No. 78

14

at 8.) Moreover, there are serious concerns regarding spoliation in this action. (ECF No. 68 at 3.)

15

In this regard, the discovery sought by plaintiff seems relevant and proportional.

16

Defendant also raises concerns about privacy and attorney-client privilege. To assuage

17

defendant’s concerns the undersigned will order that the discovery obtained be subject to the

18

stipulated protective order previously entered in this action. (ECF No. 44.) Moreover, plaintiff

19

has offered, and will be ordered, to “hire a vendor to remove or segregate legitimate attorney-

20

client privileged communications in these email accounts (based on Dr. Hu’s identification of the

21

email addresses of his former attorneys) before turning these email accounts to [plaintiff].” (ECF

22

No. 78 at 5.)

23
24

Accordingly, upon consideration of the arguments on file and for the reasons set forth
above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s May 30, 2018 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 70) is submitted without oral

25
26
27
28

argument;
1

The undersigned has previously ordered defendant to produce essentially, if not exactly, this
same information. (ECF No. 33; ECF No. 77.)
2

1

2. Plaintiff’s June 8, 2018 motion to compel (ECF No. 73) is granted;

2

3. Within 21 days of the date of this order, defendant shall identify the password or login

3

information for the following email accounts: [e-mail];

4

[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];

5

[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];

6

[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];

7

[e-mail]; and [e-mail].

8
9
10

4. Plaintiff shall hire a vendor to remove or segregate legitimate attorney-client privileged
communications in these email accounts, based on defendant’s identification of the email
addresses of his former attorneys, before production to the plaintiff;

11
12

5. The production and information found in these accounts shall be governed by the
stipulated protective order entered in this action2; and
6. The June 29, 2018 hearing of plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and motion to compel is

13
14

vacated.

15

Dated: June 25, 2018

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

DLB:6
DB\orders\orders.pro se\cspc1895.mtc.grnt.ord

25
26
27
28

2

Pursuant to that protective order, defendant may wish to meet and confer with plaintiff
regarding the appropriate designation of protected material, if any.
3