Gregory Ingalls et al v. Spotify USA Inc.

Filing 119

ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge William Alsup [denying 114 Motion for Summary Judgment]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
GREGORY INGALLS,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

No. C 16-03533 WHA

v.
SPOTIFY USA INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1–10, inclusive,

ORDER DENYING
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants.
/

16
17

Spotify’s second and successive motion for summary judgment is DENIED in light of

18

fact issues. It will be easier to try the case than to sort through yet another mish-mash of

19

finger-pointing. The Court is disturbed the Spotify failed to disclose plaintiff’s usage after the

20

trial period in its Rule 26 initial disclosures. To make up for that, plaintiff may take up to two

21

two-hour depositions and propound three narrowly drawn document requests so long as plaintiff

22

pursues them in the next seven calendar days. Defendant must oblige the requests. The hearing

23

on November 8 is hereby VACATED.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated: October 30, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE