Creative Mobile Technologies, LLC v. Flywheel Software, Inc.

Filing 57

ORDER RE: FIRST DISCOVERY DISPUTE 53 54 56 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/17/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CREATIVE MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC,
Plaintiff,

8

FLYWHEEL SOFTWARE, INC.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 53, 54, 56

Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER RE: FIRST DISCOVERY
DISPUTE

v.

9
10

Case No. 16-cv-02560-SI

12
13

Plaintiff has filed a discovery dispute letter with the Court regarding the production of

14

documents and searches of custodian files.

Dkt. No. 53. Although the parties cannot agree

15

whether defendant received notice from plaintiff regarding the filing of the discovery dispute

16

letter, plaintiff did not object to defendant’s filing a response to the discovery dispute letter, which

17

defendant filed on January 13, 2017. See Dkt. Nos. 55, 56. This is the first discovery dispute in

18

this case.

19

Plaintiff asks the Court to order defendant to complete document production by January

20

27, 2017. Plaintiff states that it served its first set of requests for production (“RFPs”) on

21

September 12, 2016, and that, after an extension, defendant’s responses were due on October 21,

22

2016. Dkt. No. 53 at 1. In response, defendant does not dispute the deadlines that plaintiff

23

summarized in its discovery dispute letter. Defendant states that it made an initial production on

24

October 31, 2016, and a supplemental production on December 19, 2016. Dkt. No. 56 at 1. The

25

parties met and conferred on December 20, 2016. Id. Defendant acknowledges that production

26

still remains outstanding but offers no proposed deadline for when it can feasibly complete

27

production, offers no reason why it missed the October 21, 2016 deadline, and offers no reason

28

(other than “the broad nature of the requests and the number of custodians”) why it cannot meet a

1

January 27, 2017 deadline. See id. at 1-2. The parties have a private mediation scheduled for

2

March 9, 2017, and plaintiff wishes to take depositions in advance of mediation. See Dkt. No. 35

3

at 2; Dkt. No. 53 at 1.

4

Plaintiff also requests that the Court order defendant to search all of plaintiff’s proposed

5

custodians for documents responsive to plaintiff’s document request. Dkt. No. 53 at 2.

6

response, defendant said that it agrees to search the custodians named in plaintiff’s discovery letter

7

and that it is in the process of conducting this search. 1 Dkt. No. 56 at 2. Thus, it appears the

8

dispute regarding custodians is now moot.

In

Accordingly, the court GRANTS IN PART plaintiff’s request. Defendant shall produce all

10

responsive documents no later than February 10, 2017. Defendant shall cooperate with plaintiff

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

to schedule depositions to occur between that date and the March 9, 2017 mediation.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 17, 2017
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff has issued six RFPs “relating to payment processing and Flywheel’s pleadings
and Interrogatory responses, [and] Flywheel refuses to search in any custodian files and refuses to
explain where, if not from these custodian files, responsive documents will come from.” Dkt. No.
53 at 2. Defendant says that it will produce responsive documents, but that these documents are
not contained in custodian files. Dkt. No. 56 at 2.
2