Loop AI Labs, Inc. v. Gatti et al

Filing 501

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 474 Motion for Leave to File; denying 475 Motion for Leave to File; denying 476 Motion for Leave to File; Order re 483 Plaintiff's "Notice" re document production.(dmrlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2016)

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.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS; ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S
“NOTICE” RE DOCUMENT
PRODUCTION
Re: Dkt. Nos. 474, 475, 476, 483

12
13

Loop filed three administrative motions for leave to file ex parte discovery letters. [Docket

14

Nos. 474, 475, 476.] Almawave and IQ Systems, Inc. filed oppositions to the first two motions,

15

respectively. [Docket Nos. 480, 479.] The court did not receive an opposition to the third motion,

16

which pertains to a dispute about deposition scheduling.

17

Having reviewed all of the submissions, the court denies the three administrative motions.

18

In light of the parties’ exceedingly poor discovery track record, the court previously held that it

19

would not grant leave to file an ex parte discovery submission unless the moving party could

20

demonstrate “exceptional circumstances.” [Docket No. 222, 271, 461.] None of Loop’s motions

21

meet this standard. However, with respect to Docket No. 476, the court directs the parties to meet

22

and confer immediately to schedule the depositions of Anna Gatti and Tony DiNapoli, assuming

23

these depositions have not yet occurred. The court grants leave for Ms. Gatti’s deposition to take

24

place on March 30, 2016, even though it exceeds the March 29, 2016 discovery deadline.

25

The court has also reviewed Loop’s “Notice Regarding Court Order Dated March 10,

26

2016.” [Docket No. 483]. In its March 10, 2016 Order, the court directed Loop to “provide its

27

entire document production to all parties on a disk or via Dropbox” by no later than March 14,

28

2016. [Docket No. 465.] The court ordered that Loop make the production in searchable form,

1

unless the cost of doing so would be “significant and prohibitive.” If this was the case, Loop was

2

given the opportunity by March 14, 2016 “to notify the court of the exact expense involved in

3

providing its document production in a searchable format.” Id.

4

On March 14, 2016, Loop filed a “notice” which makes clear that it had not complied with
the court’s order to provide the documents via disk or Dropbox. [Docket No. 483.] As to the

6

setting forth the “exact expense” of producing the documents in searchable format, Loop states

7

that to “re-process the entire production and make it searchable outside of the database provided to

8

the Defendants would cost over $1500 plus hourly rates of the discovery provider to process this

9

task.” This amount does not appear to be “significant and prohibitive.” Therefore, Loop shall

10

immediately comply with the court’s order to provide its document production via Dropbox or

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

disk. If it cannot provide the documents in a searchable format, it shall produce all documents

12

immediately nevertheless, and shall follow up with production of a searchable format within two

13

weeks of today.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 21, 2016
______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
United States Magistrate Judge

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