Loop AI Labs, Inc. v. Gatti et al

Filing 776

ORDER re Discovery Sanctions as to Defendants Gatti and IQSystem, LLC, re 648 Order on Discovery Letter Brief, 696 Letter filed by Loop AI Labs Inc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 07/04/2016. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/4/2016)

Download PDF
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. ORDER RE DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AS TO DEFENDANTS GATTI AND IQSYSTEM, LLC Re: Dkt. Nos. 648, 696 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 On May 6, 2016, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff 14 Loop AI Labs Inc.’s motions to compel further discovery from Defendants Anna Gatti and 15 IQSystem, LLC (“IQS LLC”). [Docket No. 648.] In the order, the court concluded that Gatti and 16 IQS LLC’s objections to Plaintiff’s discovery were not substantially justified and noted, 17 “sanctions appear warranted pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(ii).” Id. at 7. The court ordered Plaintiff to 18 elect between two options, should the court ultimately decide to impose sanctions—either 1) 19 Gatti’s appearance for an additional seven hours of deposition or 2) Gatti and IQS LLC’s payment 20 of the reasonable attorneys’ fees Plaintiff incurred in moving to compel. Id. at 7-8. The court 21 ordered Plaintiff to “file a letter simply electing option (1) or (2), and nothing more” by May 20, 22 2015, and set a deadline for Gatti and IQS LLC’s response. Id. at 8. 23 Plaintiff did not comply with the court’s order. Instead, on May 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a 24 letter to the court in which it sought permission to serve “certain [unidentified] Subpoenas that are 25 material to the claims in this case, in lieu of redeposing Defendant Gatti or obtaining a fee award.” 26 [Docket No. 696.] The court chose two potential sanctions which were tailored to the conduct at 27 issue, and allowed Plaintiff to select between them. Plaintiff did not do so, and in fact, failed to 28 comply with the court’s order. The court therefore declines to impose Rule 37(a)(5)(ii) sanctions against Gatti and/or IQS LLC for the discovery conduct at issue in the May 6, 2016 order. 2 S RT ER H 8 9 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 R NIA . Ryu onna M Judge D NO 7 FO 6 ED RDER ______________________________________ IS SO O IT Donna M. Ryu United States Magistrate Judge LI 5 Dated: July 4, 2016 UNIT ED 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. RT U O 3 S DISTRICT TE C TA A 1 N F D IS T IC T O R C

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?