Loop AI Labs, Inc. v. Gatti et al
Filing
949
Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 939 Motion for Modification of Court's Nov. 4, 2016 Order.(dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
LOOP AI LABS INC,
7
Case No. 15-cv-00798-HSG (DMR)
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
ANNA GATTI, et al.,
10
Defendants.
Re: Dkt. No. 939
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION
FOR MODIFICATION OF COURT'S
ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION
OF TRANSLATED ORRICK
DOCUMENTS
12
Defendants Almawave USA, Inc., Almawave S.r.l., and Almaviva S.p.A., filed a motion
13
for modification of this court’s November 4, 2016 order. That order required Defendants to
14
prepare certified English translations of all Italian-language emails previously submitted for in
15
camera review by November 18, 2016. Plaintiff Loop AI Labs Inc. filed an opposition brief.
16
Defendants waived a reply.1 [Docket Nos. 939 (Defs.’ Mot), 947 (Pl.’s Opp’n).] The court finds
17
that this matter is suitable for determination without oral argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b).
18
Defendants’ motion for modification asked for a continuance of the November 18, 2016
19
deadline for submitting translations, as well as cost-shifting for the translation costs. In its
20
opposition brief, Plaintiff not only opposes these requests, but goes well beyond. It asks the court
21
to sanction Defendants and defense counsel for alleged misconduct relating to the motion for
22
23
24
25
modification, as well as alleged misconduct in responding to Plaintiff’s subpoena to third party
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (“Orrick”). It also requests a finding that Defendants waived any
privilege as to the Italian-language emails based on Defendants’ failure to submit English
translations of the same for the court’s review. Plaintiff also revisits arguments that Defendants
26
27
28
1
Defendants filed a motion for an order shortening time for briefing and resolution of the motion
for modification in which it waived a reply and hearing on the motion for modification. [Docket
No. 940 at 1.]
1
waived any privilege in the Orrick documents and cites to alleged new evidence that it claims
2
resulted in waiver, including recently-filed declarations by defense counsel and others attesting to
3
communications between Defendants and Orrick.
4
At this time, the court will only address Defendants’ request to modify the November 4,
2016 order. The court originally ordered Defendants to submit the translations by November 18,
6
2016. In their motion for modification, Defendants claim that translating the documents by that
7
deadline would cost approximately $34,000. They ask the court to 1) continue the compliance
8
deadline; 2) order Defendants to produce a privilege log that would enable Plaintiff to assess the
9
claims of privilege and require translation of only those documents challenged by Plaintiff; and 3)
10
order Plaintiff to share the cost of obtaining translations for those documents it elects to challenge.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
5
Defs.’ Mot. at 2. On November 10, 2016, the court denied Defendants’ motion for an order
12
shortening time, but continued the November 18, 2016 translation deadline to November 21, 2016
13
in order to give Plaintiff an opportunity file an opposition brief. [Docket No. 943.] Defendants
14
have since notified the court that they have identified a vendor that can translate all of the
15
documents within two weeks, and for a far lower cost (an estimated $10,485). [Docket No. 944.]
16
The court finds that imposing cost-shifting for the cost of translating the documents along
17
with implementation of a privilege log mechanism by which Plaintiff may challenge specific
18
documents is unjustified. Defendants argue that cost-shifting is appropriate because “each party
19
seeking discovery is expected to bear any special attendant costs.” Mot. at 2 (citing Saucedo v.
20
Brazelton, No. 13-CV-01696-SI, 2015 WL 4481795, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 20150 (quoting In
21
re Puerto Rico Elec. Power Authority, 687 F.2d 501, 509 (1st Cir. 1982)). However, neither of
22
these cases involves circumstances similar to those present here. Defendants previously argued
23
that a privilege log was not required because the Orrick documents were responsive to a third
24
party subpoena, and not party discovery. [Docket No. 335, Dec. 10, 2015 Hr’g Tr. at 67.] They
25
instead asked for in camera review of the documents, resulting in a considerable burden to the
26
court, which had to review over 4,000 pages of material. [See Docket No. 189 (Defs.’ Reply) at
27
14.] Had Defendants instead promptly produced a privilege log which permitted Plaintiff to
28
evaluate its claims of privilege as to the Orrick documents, Defendants would have been in a
2
1
2
stronger position to argue for cost-shifting. However, that ship sailed long ago.
Defendants shall submit translations of all of the Italian-language emails by no later than
3
November 21, 2016, as previously ordered. Defendants shall bear all translation costs. [See
4
Docket No. 943.] After the court reviews the translations, it will issue any further orders
5
necessitated by the issues raised in Plaintiff’s opposition.
Jud
ER
H
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
FO
RT
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
R NIA
S
______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu . Ryu
United ge DoMagistrate Judge
States nna M
NO
10
Dated: November 15, 2016
D
RDERE
OO
IT IS S
LI
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
A
8
UNIT
ED
7
RT
U
O
6
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
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?