Greer v. Electronic Arts, Inc.

Filing 97

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting in part 74 Motion to Compel (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

GREGORY A. GREER,
Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

Case No.: C10-3601 RS (JSC)
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF
DISCOVERY (Dkt. No. 74)

15
16
17

ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC.,
Defendant.

18
19

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Discovery

20

(Dkt. No. 74). Having considered the parties’ written submissions, having had the benefit of

21

oral argument on January 5, 2012, and the District Court having denied Defendant’s Motion

22

for Summary Judgment, the Court GRANTS the motion in part.

23
24
25
26
27
28

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Court incorporates by reference the factual summary of the case in Judge
Seeborg’s Order denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 96).
LEGAL STANDARD
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party ―may obtain discovery regarding
any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. . . . Relevant

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.‖ See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). District

3

courts have broad discretion in determining whether evidence is relevant for discovery

4

purposes. See Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005).

5

Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 37–2, a party moving to compel discovery

6

must ―detail the basis for the party’s contention that it is entitled to the requested discovery

7

and show how the proportionality and other requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2) are

8

satisfied.‖ See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2) (requiring that when determining the

9

appropriateness of discovery requests courts consider whether the discovery is duplicative or

10

overly burdensome and whether the burden and expense of discovery outweighs the benefit).

11
Northern District of California

information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated

2

United States District Court

1

DISCUSSION

12

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel challenges Defendant’s response to the following

13

discovery requests: Interrogatory Numbers: 1, 3, 6, 7, and 10-14 and Requests for the

14

Production of Document Numbers: 1, 5-10. With respect to much of this discovery, Plaintiff

15

contends that Defendant has not been sufficiently forthcoming in its responses. Defendant in

16

turn argues that Plaintiff’s requests are overbroad and in some instances, unduly

17

burdensome. At the hearing, Plaintiff clarified the scope of many of the requests and

18

Defendant’s counsel made representations about Defendant’s efforts to comply with these

19

requests. In light of these representations, the Court declines to order any further discovery

20

regarding these topics, except as to the discovery concerning interrogatory numbers 10-13

21

and requests for the production of documents numbers 8-9, as discussed below.

22

1. Interrogatory No. 3

23

Defendant has agreed to identify to Plaintiff those individuals who made the decision

24

in 2007 to make Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn available for free download. The

25

Court declines to order any further discovery.

26

2. Interrogatory Nos. 6-7

27

Defendant has represented that it does not possess any non-privileged information

28

responsive to these interrogatories. Plaintiff has agreed to accept this representation.

2

1

3. Interrogatory No. 1

2

Defendant has agreed to identify the countries within each territory for those

3

territories that were identified in Defendant’s January 4, 2012 supplemental response to

4

Interrogatory Number One. The Court declines to order any further discovery.

5

4. Request for the Production of Documents Nos. 5 and 10

6

Defendant has represented that it did not find any documents evidencing that it

7

encouraged anyone to create a ―mod‖ or any other derivative work with the song

8

Destructible Times, nor did it find any documents evidencing that it encouraged anyone to

9

download patches that would insert the song Destructible Times into a ―mod‖ of any game.

10

The Court declines to order any further discovery on this subject.

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

5. Request for the Production of Documents No. 6

12

Plaintiff seeks discovery regarding any communications between EA executives and

13

staff regarding their expectations of the Command & Conquer community, i.e.,

14

www.commandandconquer.com. The Court finds that this evidence would be tangentially

15

relevant at best and declines to order any further discovery regarding this subject.

16

6. Interrogatory No. 14 and Request for the Production of Documents No. 7

17

Defendant has represented that it cannot ascertain either the IP addresses or the

18

number of downloads made from Defendant’s site in August 2007 when Command &

19

Conquer: Tiberian Dawn became available for download on the site. In February 2011,

20

Defendant began tracking this sort of information for some Command & Conquer products

21

for forum related activity, but not for downloads or sales. In light of Defendant’s

22

representations, the Court declines to order any further discovery regarding this subject.

23

7. Interrogatory Nos. 10-13; Request for the Production of Documents Nos. 8-9

24

In response to these requests, Defendant has produced information regarding all

25

domestic net revenues from the distribution of the Game or any compilation packs of the

26

Game dating back to 2006. At the hearing, Defendant conceded that if its Motion for

27

Summary Judgment on the laches claim was denied, then the information regarding

28

Defendant’s revenues and profits dating back to 1998 would be relevant to the question of

3

1

statutory damages. The Court indicated at the hearing that should summary judgment be

2

denied, then information regarding international revenues and profits would similarly be

3

relevant under Rule 26. Accordingly, based on the Court’s ruling denying summary

4

judgment on the laches claim, Plaintiff is entitled to information responsive to this request

5

dating back to 1998 for both domestic and international revenues and profits.

6

8. Request for the Production of Documents No. 1

7

Plaintiff initially named both Electronic Arts, Inc. (―EA‖), and his former band mate,

8

Frank Klepacki (―Klepacki‖), as defendants in this action. On November 18, 2010, Plaintiff

9

amended his complaint to only state a claim against EA. Although the parties dispute

Northern District of California

whether this dismissal was with or without prejudice, it is undisputed that Plaintiff did not

11
United States District Court

10

evidence his intent in writing that the dismissal be with prejudice until November 2011

12

when— according to Plaintiff— he sent a letter to Klepacki’s counsel indicating as much.

13

In response to Request for the Production of Documents No. 1, Defendant asserted the

14

joint defense privilege, also referred to as the common interest privilege, over a June 2011

15

email exchange between Klepacki and an executive at EA. The common interest privilege

16

applies where ―(1) the communication is made by separate parties in the course of a matter of

17

common interest; (2) the communication is designed to further that effort; and (3) the

18

privilege has not been waived. The privilege does not require a complete unity of interests

19

among the participants, and it may apply where the parties’ interests are adverse in

20

substantial respects.‖ United States v. Bergonzi, 216 F.R.D. 487, 495 (N.D. Cal. 2003)

21

(internal citations omitted).

22

Plaintiff contends that the privilege does not apply because at the time of the emails

23

Klepacki was no longer a party to the action. However, as explained above, Klepacki’s

24

dismissal was at least initially without prejudice, and as such, at the time of the

25

communications at issue, absent any judicially noticeable indication to the contrary, Plaintiff

26

could have reasserted his claims against Klepacki. Thus, at the time of the communications

27

at issue Klepacki and EA continued to share a common interest because they were both

28

vulnerable to related claims by Plaintiff and therefore any communications between them

4

1

regarding this matter are subject to the joint defense privilege. Accordingly, the Court

2

declines to order production of the email.
CONCLUSION

3
4
5

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Discovery (Dkt.
No. 74) is GRANTED in part.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: February 1, 2012
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5