Loop AI Labs, Inc. v. Gatti et al

Filing 175

ORDER re 172 Joint Discovery Letter Brief filed by Almawave USA Inc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 08/25/2015. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LOOP AI LABS INC,

Case No. 15-cv-00798-HSG (DMR)

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY
LETTER

9
10

ANNA GATTI, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 172

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The court has received the parties’ August 17, 2015 joint letter regarding numerous

13

discovery disputes. [Docket No. 172 (Joint Letter).] Plaintiff Loop AI, Inc. did not provide full

14

argument on several of the disputes. Instead, as to one of the disputes, Plaintiff requested leave to

15

fully brief its position on a protective order, and attached an exhibit containing its redline of

16

changes to Defendants’ proposed protective order, along with one page of annotations explaining

17

certain edits, essentially granting itself additional pages of argument. (Joint Letter Ex. B.) The

18

court previously ordered the parties to follow the structure and limits of its joint letter process

19

because it requires the parties to focus on the most important issues, and to make appropriate

20

compromises. [Docket No. 165.] The court is concerned that Plaintiff continues to disregard this

21

guidance. Nevertheless, in the interest of moving the case forward, the court will accept Plaintiff’s

22

exhibit, and grants Defendants leave to respond to Plaintiff’s arguments in a similar format. By no

23

later than August 31, 2015, Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff’s annotated arguments

24

regarding the proposed protective order. Defendants’ response may not exceed one page.

25

Plaintiff also requested leave to fully brief its disputes with third-party Russell Reynolds

26

Associates (“RRA”) regarding Plaintiff’s subpoena duces tecum to RRA. In the alternative,

27

Plaintiff asks the court to incorporate by reference its motion to compel filed in the Southern

28

District of New York (SDNY) (Case 15-mc-00211). (Joint Letter 6 n.17.) The court has reviewed

Plaintiff’s memorandum of law in support of its motion to compel filed in SDNY (Docket No. 2)

2

and RRA’s opposition thereto (Docket No. 12). The court finds that these filings may be helpful

3

to resolving the present disputes about the RRA subpoena and will incorporate them into the joint

4

letter, as Plaintiff requests. The court notes that Plaintiff’s motion to compel is somewhat general.

5

RRA’s opposition contains detailed, specific arguments supporting its objections to each

6

document request, as well as proposed compromises. The court believes that it may benefit from a

7

reply submission by Plaintiff, but only if it is similarly detailed and specific. Therefore, by August

8

28, 2015, RRA shall file a statement indicating whether it has changed its positions on any of the

9

objections briefed in its July 20, 2015 opposition to the motion to compel and explaining the basis

10

for any such changes. Such statement shall not exceed two pages. RRA shall also lodge chambers

11

copies of the documents filed at Docket No. 12 in SDNY (including all supporting evidence) by

12

August 28, 2015.

13

By September 2, 2015, Plaintiff shall file a reply to RRA’s arguments in the July 20, 2015

14

opposition and August 28, 2015 update. Plaintiff’s reply shall not exceed three pages. Plaintiff

15

shall also lodge chambers copies of the documents filed at Docket Nos. 1-3 in SDNY (including

16

all supporting evidence) by September 2, 2015.

R NIA

______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
M. Ryu
United States Magistrate Judge
Donna

NO

RT

ER

H

22

Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2

FO

21

Dated: August 25, 2015

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

LI

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

A

19

UNIT
ED

18

S

17

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C