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)

Download PDF
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

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?