Fitbit, Inc. v. Laguna 2, LLC et al

Filing 249

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore regarding 229 5/22/18 Discovery Letter Brief; ORDER regarding 232 5/24/18 Discovery Letter Brief. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FITBIT, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 3:17-cv-00079-EMC (KAW)

v.

ORDER REGARDING 5/22/18 AND
5/24/18 JOINT LETTERS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 229, 232

P-COVE ENTERPRISES, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

The parties filed two joint letters on May 22 and May 24, 2018. (Dkt. Nos. 229 & 232.)

14

The first letter concerns Defendants’ requests for production of documents that seeks reports from

15

OpSec Security. (5/22 Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 229.) The second letter concerns Fitbit’s 75 requests

16

for admission that seek to have Defendants authenticate documents as business records that were

17

producing during discovery. (5/24 Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 232.)

18

As to May 22, 2018 letter, Fitbit is ordered to produce any OpSec reports that include any

19

discussion of the time period prior to when the case was filed, because, as drafted, the requests are

20

overbroad in time and scope, as there are no temporal limits. (5/22 Joint Letter, Ex. A.) If, as

21

Fitbit contends, that no such reports exist, then Fitbit has satisfied its burden. (See 5/22 Joint Letter

22

at 4.) If reports do concern any time period prior to the filing of this case, they must be produced

23

even if they do not explicitly analyze the effect of the secondary market on Fitbit’s sales, because

24

relevancy is a broad standard. (See 5/22 Joint Letter at 3.)

25

As to the May 24, 2018 letter, the undersigned cannot fathom why Defendants are refusing

26

to authenticate documents that they produced in discovery. If the documents are not business

27

records, they are free to deny the applicable request(s). The Court is not persuaded that the act of

28

seeking authentication via requests for admission constitute an impermissible conclusion of law.

1

(See 5/24 Joint Letter at 4.)

2

Both parties shall provide supplemental responses within 7 days of this order.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: June 4, 2018
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2