AF Holdings LLC v. Doe

Filing 50

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas denying 38 Motion to Compel; denying 46 Discovery Letter Brief (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 AF HOLDINGS LLC, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 JOE NAVASCA, et al., ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL Re: Dkt. No. 38 Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No.:3:12-cv-02396-EMC (NJV) 12 Plaintiff AF Holdings LLC filed an “emergency motion to compel,” alleging that 13 14 defendant Joe Navasca was destroying evidence of his copyright infringement activities by 15 running a computer program, CCleaner, on his computer. See Doc. Nos. 38, 42. Discovery 16 matters in this action having been referred to the undersigned, the undersigned ordered Navasca to 17 stop running CCleaner on any computer(s) in his custody and/or under his control, ordered the 18 parties to meet and confer, and scheduled a briefing schedule and expedited hearing for January 19 31, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. See Doc. No. 44. The parties filed their supplemental briefing as ordered, 20 indicating they had agreed to image Navasca’s hard drive(s), but that other issues remained. See 21 Doc. Nos. 46 & 47. However, neither party appeared at the January 31, 2013 hearing. Doc. No. 22 48. 23 The court has reviewed the letter briefs filed by the parties and concludes that its prior 24 order (Doc. No. 44) adequately preserves the status quo with regard to the alleged spoliation 25 issue. Navasca shall not run CCleaner on any computer(s) in his custody and/or under his control, 26 and the parties shall image his hard drive(s). As Navasca notes in his letter brief, Plaintiff 27 propounded its first discovery requests on January 24, 2013. Doc. No. 47 at 2. Navasca’s 28 responses are not yet due. Currently, there is nothing to compel. The additional issues Plaintiff 1 raised in its letter brief therefore are not ripe for decision, and the court denies the motion to 2 compel without prejudice. 3 The court once more urges the parties to meet and confer before asking the court to delve 4 into discovery matters that are best resolved by the parties themselves. Furthermore, allegations 5 of spoliation are extremely serious, and the court urges Plaintiff to review the facts very carefully 6 before pursuing this avenue based solely on an article. In particular, Plaintiff should 7 review the expert declaration that Navasca filed with his letter brief, to fully understand the 8 purpose and effect of CCleaner. 9 This order terminates Docket Nos. 38, 46 & 47. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: February 4, 2013 ________________________ Nandor J. Vadas United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?