Dropbox, Inc. v. Thru Inc.

Filing 66

Discovery Order re 64 Letter filed by Dropbox, Inc. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 5/31/2016. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DROPBOX, INC.,

Case No. 15-cv-01741-EMC (MEJ)

Plaintiff,
8

DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 64

9
10

THRU INC.,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Following a discovery request by Plaintiff Dropbox, Inc. (“Dropbox”) regarding Defendant

14

Thru Inc. (“Thru”)’s failure to produce documents, the Court ordered the parties to meet and

15

confer in chambers on February 12, 2016. Dkt. No. 49. As a result of the parties’ negotiations,

16

they agreed upon a production schedule and submitted a proposed order. Dkt. No. 50. On

17

February 12, the Court issued the Order, which required Thru to search for and produce by

18

February 26, 2016 (1) all of its responsive documents; (2) a list of the custodians from whom it

19

collected; and (3) its privilege log. Dkt. Nos. 50, 51.

20

The parties have now filed a joint letter in which Dropbox contends Thru is in violation of

21

the Order and seeks sanctions as a result, requesting the Court: (1) bar Thru from introducing any

22

document produced after February 26; (2) find that Thru has waived the attorney-client privilege

23

as to the subject matter of the 241 withheld documents cited in its log and order Thru to produce

24

those documents; (3) extend by three months Dropbox’s deadline for fact discovery; and (4) order

25

Thru to pay Dropbox’s fees and costs incurred in compelling Thru’s compliance with its discovery

26

obligations. Dkt. No. 64. Thru admits that it was tardy in complying with the Discovery Order

27

due to unforeseen issues, but states it has now complied with its obligations, and it contends

28

Dropbox fails to point to any prejudice or damage that the delay caused.

1

As an initial matter, paragraph 5 of the undersigned’s Discovery Standing Order provides
that motions for sanctions shall be filed separately, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37

3

and Civil Local Rules 7 and 37-3. As Dropbox does not appear to seek further production, and

4

neither party included a proposed compromise on the issues in dispute (as required under

5

paragraph 3 of the Standing Order), this matter would have been more properly addressed in the

6

form of a noticed motion. Regardless, having reviewed the parties’ positions, sanctions are

7

unwarranted. The Court notes the parties worked together to draft an order setting a February 26,

8

2016 production deadline and, despite its efforts, Thru was unable to comply with the deadline.

9

However, Thru maintains it has now complied with its obligations and Dropbox does not appear to

10

seek further production. Moreover, discovery remains open and if Dropbox contends more time is

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

needed based on Thru’s delay, it may seek an extension of the discovery deadline from the

12

presiding judge, preferably in the form of a stipulation and proposed order from both parties.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16
17

Dated: May 31, 2016
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

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