Loop AI Labs, Inc. v. Gatti et al

Filing 374

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu re 369 Plaintiff's Administrative Motion to Compel Jurisdictional Discovery.(dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2016)

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.
9
10

ANNA GATTI, et al.,
Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 369

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
COMPEL JURISDICTIONAL
DISCOVERY

The court has received Plaintiff Loop AI Labs Inc.’s “administrative motion to compel

13

jurisdictional discovery,” which was filed on the eve of jurisdictional depositions scheduled for

14

the week of January 18, 2016. [Docket No. 369.] Plaintiff’s motion raises issues related to the

15

responses of Defendants Almawave S.r.l., Almaviva S.p.A, and Almawave USA Inc.’s to

16

jurisdictional discovery, including their responses to interrogatories, document redactions, and

17

privilege log.

18

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s submission, it appears there are issues with the jurisdictional

19

discovery on both sides that require further discussion by the parties. First, it is not clear that all

20

of Plaintiff’s interrogatories are targeted to the jurisdictional issues. However, where Plaintiff has

21

propounded a jurisdiction-related interrogatory, it is not clear that Defendants’ responses are

22

sufficient. For example, if interrogatory 3 to Almaviva S.p.A. is construed as seeking information

23

related to jurisdictional issues, i.e. contact with the United States by the Italian Almaviva

24

Defendants’ officers, employees, or directors from which Plaintiff’s claims arise, Almaviva

25

S.p.A.’s response appears insufficient. It also appears that Defendants have made wholesale

26

redactions of at least one document that may not be appropriate in the absence of an assertion of

27

privilege, particularly given the fact that a protective order is in place in this case. Finally,

28

Plaintiff contends that it has received a privilege log indicating that Defendants have withheld

1

approximately 2,500 documents on privilege grounds, but that Defendants’ log does not provide

2

the basis for the privilege (i.e., Plaintiff contends that many of the documents do not involve

3

communications with attorneys).

4

Given the upcoming jurisdictional depositions, the court orders the following expedited

5

schedule: the parties shall immediately meet and confer regarding the issues in Plaintiff’s

6

administrative motion to compel. Counsel shall meet and confer until they have fully exhausted

7

the meet and confer process on the issues raised in Plaintiff’s administrative motion, and shall

8

submit a joint letter regarding the remaining disputes by no later than 12:00 p.m. on Thursday,

9

January 14, 2016. Plaintiff’s administrative motion is denied without prejudice.

10

S

ERED

ER

H

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

u

FO

a M. Ry

onn
Judge D

LI

RT

15

R NIA

______________________________________
O ORD
IT IS S
Donna M. Ryu
United States Magistrate Judge

A

14

UNIT
ED

13

Dated: January 12, 2016

NO

United States District Court
Northern District of California

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RT
U
O

11

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C