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)

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