Continental D.I.A. Diamond Products, Inc. v. Dong Young Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. et al

Filing 137

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES and DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS re 117 , 118 , 119 . Defendants delcaration is due 8/24/09. (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Response to Second Set of Requests for Production [Docket No. 117] On July 17, 2009, the Court issued an order granting plaintiff's motion to compel defendants to produce documents in response to plaintiff's second set of requests for production. See Docket No. 114. As defendants did not file an opposition to plaintiff's original discovery motion, the Court granted plaintiff's request in its entirety. Plaintiff has now filed an additional letter brief stating that defendants have failed to respond fully to the Court's July 17 order. Plaintiff seeks another order compelling defendants to respond to its On August 3, 2009, plaintiff Continental D.I.A. Diamond Products, Inc. filed two letter briefs seeking the Court's intervention in a discovery dispute. Plaintiff also filed a motion for sanctions. The Court will consider each request in turn. CONTINENTAL D.I.A. DIAMOND PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff / Counter-defendant, v. DONG YOUNG DIAMOND INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., DONGSOO LEE, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants / Counter-claimants. / No. C 08-02136 SI ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES and DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

second set of requests for production.1 Defendants state that they produced documents responsive to these requests on August 5, 2009, two days after plaintiff filed the instant motion. In a supplemental letter brief, plaintiff describes this additional discovery as deficient. See Docket No. 130. The Court orders defendants to file a declaration providing the following information for each of plaintiff's requests (Nos. 29-35 and 38-54): (1) whether defendants have produced all documents in their possession responsive to the request and (2) what measures they took to locate responsive documents. Defendants shall file the declaration by August 24, 2009.

2.

Motion to Compel Responses to First Set of Interrogatories [Docket No. 118] In its July 17 order, the Court also granted plaintiff's motion to compel defendants to respond

to plaintiff's first set of interrogatories. In the instant motion, plaintiff contends that defendants have still failed to provide complete responses.2 Defendants again contend that they have already responded to these requests fully. The Court orders defendants to file a declaration providing the following information for each of plaintiff's interrogatories (Nos. 1-2, 5-13): (1) whether defendants have responded fully to each interrogatory request and (2) what measures they took to identify the information requested by plaintiff. Defendants shall file the declaration by August 24, 2009.

3.

Motion for Sanctions [Docket No. 119] Plaintiff requests that the Court impose sanctions amounting to $16,400 on defendants for their

purported refusal to comply with the Court's July 17 order. Plaintiff also seek trial sanctions precluding defendants from presenting various categories of evidence at trial. The Court finds that under all of the

The requests at issue are Document Requests 29-54, propounded as plaintiff's second set of requests for production. See Docket No. 102, ex. C. Requests 36 and 37 seek documents supporting defendants' counterclaims for interference with prospective economic advantage and commercial defamation. Defendants voluntarily dismissed these counterclaims on August 10, 2009. See Docket No. 133. Plaintiff has withdrawn its motion as to requests 36 and 37. See Docket No. 130. The interrogatories at issue are Interrogatories Nos. 1-13, propounded as plaintiff's first set of interrogatories. See Docket No. 123, ex. 1. Plaintiff has withdrawn its request regarding Interrogatories 3 and 4 as they pertain to defendants' now dismissed counterclaims. 2
2

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

circumstances of this case, including the difficulty of translating documents from Korean, sanctions are not warranted at this time. Accordingly, plaintiff's request for sanctions is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2009

SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

3