Federal Trade Commission v. DIRECTV, Inc. et al

Filing 149

Discovery Order re: 148 Discovery Letter Brief Regarding FTC RFP No. 2. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/10/2016. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

6

Case No. 15-cv-01129-HSG (MEJ)

Plaintiff,
7

DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 148

8
DIRECTV, INC., et al.,

9

Defendants.
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On June 9, 2016, Defendants DIRECTV and DIRECTV, LLC (collectively, “DIRECTV”)

13

and Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed a joint discovery letter regarding the FTC’s

14

Request for Production (“RFP”) No. 2, which seeks “[a]ll Advertisements disseminated to

15

consumers relating to the Service.” Dkt. No. 148 (Jt. Ltr.); Id., Ex. A (FTC’s RFPs)1, Dkt. No.

16

148-1. The FTC notes it served its RFPs on June 26, 2015, and DIRECTV does not dispute the

17

central relevance of its advertisements to this case. Id. at 2. Instead, the FTC states that prior to

18

this letter brief, DIRECTV maintained the FTC would receive a production of DIRECTV’s ads

19

from various nonparties, but “now changes its position to promise to provide responsive

20

documents by July 8, 2016 – over a year after the RFP was propounded, and only two weeks

21

before the close of fact discovery.” Id. In response, DIRECTV maintains that it and third-parties

22

in this case “have produced tens of thousands of pages of advertisements,” the FTC “has the

23

relevant advertisements,” and “[a]ll that is left is a small amount of clean-up, which DIRECTV

24

has agreed to complete by July 8, 2016.” Id. at 4. However, given the July 21, 2016 discovery

25

cut-off (see Dkt. No. 32), the FTC argues that “any additional delay in DIRECTV’s production

26
27
28

1

“‘Service’ means any direct-to-home digital television service that [DIRECTV] have
Advertised, marketed, promoted, sold, or otherwise offered to consumers in the United States.”
Id., Ex. A ¶ 12.

1

would significantly prejudice the FTC. DIRECTV’s proposal to produce its ads on July 8—just

2

two weeks before the close of discovery—will not permit the FTC to complete a meaningful

3

review to determine if any categories remain missing.” Id.

4

As DIRECTV does not appear to dispute the relevance of the FTC’s request, the Court

5

ORDERS DIRECTV to produce to the FTC complete copies of all responsive print, digital

6

(Internet), and television advertisements, as detailed in the FTC’s portion of the joint letter and

7

that have not already been produced, by July 1, 2016. If the FTC contends more time is needed to

8

complete a meaningful review of the production, it may seek an extension of the discovery

9

deadline from the presiding judge, preferably in the form of a stipulation and proposed order from

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

both parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14
15

Dated: June 10, 2016
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

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