King.com Limited v. 6 Waves LLC

Filing 91

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting in part and denying in part 88 Discovery Letter Brief and 90 Discovery Letter Brief.(dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
KING.COM LIMITED,

12

Plaintiff(s),

13

6 WAVES LLC,

15

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY
LETTERS [DOCKET NOS. 88, 90]

v.

14

No. C-13-03977-MMC (DMR)

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

16
17

The parties filed a joint discovery letter, and an update to that letter. [Docket Nos. 88, 90.]

18

Plaintiff King.com Limited (“King”) seeks an order compelling Defendants Six Waves Inc. and 6

19

Waves LLC (collectively referred to as “SWI”) to produce certain discovery. The court held a

20

hearing on August 28, 2014, and made rulings from the bench. This order summarizes those rulings.

21

For the reasons stated at the hearing, the court ordered the following:

22

King’s motion to compel 6 Waves LLC to respond to King’s requests for production of

23

documents (“RFPs”) is granted. 6 Waves LLC stated it does not have responsive documents, but

24

has not provided this information in a formal discovery response. 6 Waves LLC shall provide

25

formal written discovery responses to King’s discovery requests by September 5, 2014.

26

King’s motion to compel SWI to provide a declaration regarding documents from SWI’s

27

third party chat service (BigAnt) is granted. The detailed declaration shall state whether the

28

requested documents are or have ever been in the possession, custody, or control of SWI, the reasons

1

therefor, the dates during which SWI used BigAnt’s chat service, and the configuration of that chat

2

service. The declaration shall be produced by September 5, 2014.

3

King’s motion to compel responses to RFP Nos. 1, 8, and 9 is denied without prejudice.

4

The parties stated at the hearing that they have recently begun discussions of search terms that SWI

5

will use to identify discoverable information and filter out information that is not subject to

6

discovery. The parties are ordered to continue to meet and confer and to agree upon such search

7

terms, as well as the quality control methods the parties will use to evaluate whether a production is

8

missing relevant information or contains substantial amounts of irrelevant information.

9

King’s motion to compel SWI to respond to RFP No. 71 is granted in part. The parties
agree that the request shall be narrowed to only copyright infringement actions involving Farm Epic

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

and Treasure Epic. SWI shall produce responsive pleadings, docket sheets, and settlement

12

agreements by September 9, 2014.

13

King’s motion to compel SWI to respond to RFP No. 72 is granted in part. SWI shall

14

produce the settlement agreement from the Spry Fox case (including any attachments) by

15

September 9, 2014.

16

King’s motion to compel SWI to respond to RFP Nos. 73-74 is denied.

17

SWI shall also confirm in writing by September 5, 2014 that it has not withheld any

18

documents on the basis of the new objections in its supplemental RFP responses, and that SWI has

19

produced all responsive documents that are not protected by a privilege (e.g., the attorney client or

20

work product privilege). If SWI is withholding any documents on the basis of privilege, it shall

21

produce a privilege log by the date previously agreed upon by the parties.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: August 28, 2014

26
DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28

2