Twitter, Inc. v. Skootle Corp. et al

Filing 71

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/7/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

No. C 12-1721 SI

TWITTER, INC.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiff,
v.

14

SKOOTLE CORP. and JAMES KESTER,

15

Defendants.

/

16
17

Currently before the Court is Twitter’s motion to compel discovery from defendants Skootle

18

Corp. and James Kester and from two third parties. Docket No. 65. The Court has considered the

19

arguments raised and rules as follows:

20

Plaintiff’s Interrogatories Nos. 1-2: These interrogatories seek identification of “personal”

21

Twitter accounts opened by Skootle’s employees. Twitter argues this information is relevant to the issue

22

of what Skootle employees knew about Twitter’s Terms of Service (TOS). Twitter contends that it

23

cannot ascertain this information on its own, despite Skootle’s provision of a list of current and former

24

employees to Twitter, because individuals opening Twitter accounts often have the same name.

25

Defendants object to these requests, arguing that the information sought is not relevant, is personal to

26

the individual employees and is not in Skootle or Kester’s custody or control. Defendants also argue

27

that Twitter has and can continue to seek discovery directly from Skootle’s current or former

28

employees, presumably by deposition notice or subpoena, about their personal Twitter accounts.

1

The Court finds that given this information’s marginal relevance to defendants’ liability,

2

Twitter’s motion to compel as to these interrogatories is DENIED without prejudice. If, as discovery

3

continues, Twitter discovers that current or former Skootle employees used “personal” accounts in

4

furtherance of the allegations made in the complaint, it can again move to compel production of this

5

information.

6
Plaintiff’s Requests for Production 14/15 to Skootle and 15/16 to Kester: These requests ask

8

defendants to produce documents regarding defendants’ revenue and income from Skootle and Skootle’s

9

TweetAdder program, including financial statements and tax records. Defendants object to these

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

7

requests, arguing that their financial information is not relevant to the causes of action alleged. The

11

Court notes that the information sought is directly relevant to the issue of punitive damages under the

12

alleged tortious interference and fraud causes of action. As such, plaintiff’s motion to compel as to

13

these requests for production is GRANTED.

14
15

Plaintiff’s Document Subpoenas to Third Parties: Plaintiff asks the Court to compel third-parties

16

Troy Fales and Amanda Kester – who are represented by defense counsel – to produce documents. With

17

respect to Mr. Fales, Twitter has requested documents showing the amounts Fales has been paid for his

18

work on TweetAdder, allowing for redactions of personal information and of income on work or

19

services not related to TweetAdder (Request No. 3). Plaintiff contends these documents will show that

20

defendants knew about and condoned Mr. Fales’ conduct, and will help establish Mr. Fales’ status as

21

an agent of Skootle and his bias as a witness. Defense counsel object on Mr. Fales’ behalf, arguing that

22

the information sought impermissibly violates Mr. Fales’ rights of privacy as he is not a defendant. The

23

Court GRANTS Twitter’s motion to compel production of documents responsive to Request No. 3,

24

redacted as identified above.

25

The document subpoenas also seek all communications relating to Twitter, Skootle or

26

TweetAdder (Request Nos. 11, 12, 14). Defense counsel object on behalf of Mr. Fales and Ms. Kester

27

on over-breadth grounds, arguing that the requests as phrased would cover any document mentioning

28

Twitter and include, for example, emails with a signature identifying a Twitter account. The Court
2

1

GRANTS Twitter’s motion to compel with respect to Request Nos. 11, 12 and 14 but defines “relating

2

to” as “concerning, describing or discussing.”

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
Dated: November 7, 2012
6
7
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3