Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. Pounce Consulting, Inc.

Filing 177

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO DISCOVERY ORDER AND GRANTING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC.,

9

v.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION
TO DISCOVERY ORDER

10

POUNCE CONSULTING, INC., et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-04732-PJH

Plaintiff,

8

Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 172, 173

12
13

The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s objection to part of Magistrate Judge Laporte’s

14

August 14, 2018 discovery order. In that order, inter alia, Judge Laporte “denie[d]

15

Plaintiff’s request to compel Pounce USA to provide emails sent by [Roger] Viera that

16

Pounce USA does not have in its possession, custody, or control.” Dkt. 167 at 2

17

(emphasis in original). Plaintiff objects to that part of the order because “as an officer and

18

majority owner of Pounce USA, Viera’s documents are necessarily within Pounce USA’s

19

possession, custody or control.” That is true, according to plaintiff, regardless of whether

20

Viera’s emails are stored within Pounce USA’s email account or Pounce Mexico’s email

21

account. Dkt. 173-1 at 1. Without ruling on the merits of that argument, the court

22

overrules plaintiff’s objection for the following reasons.

23

Magistrate judges' rulings on nondispositive motions may be set aside or modified

24

by the district court only if found to be “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” FRCP

25

72(a). The “clearly erroneous” standard applies only to the magistrate judge's findings of

26

fact. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if the court has a definite and firm conviction

27

that a mistake has been committed. Burdick v. Commissioner, 979 F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th

28

Cir.1992). The magistrate judge's legal conclusions are freely reviewable de novo to

1

determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d

2

1195, 1200-01 (9th Cir.1984).

3

Plaintiff has not shown that Judge Laporte’s order was clearly erroneous or

4

contrary to law. Indeed, it is unclear exactly what part of Judge Laporte’s order plaintiff

5

contends would meet that standard. Judge Laporte merely “denie[d] Plaintiff’s request to

6

compel Pounce USA to provide emails sent by Viera that Pounce USA does not have in

7

its possession, custody, or control.” Dkt. 167 at 2 (emphasis in original). In other words,

8

Judge Laporte’s order confirmed the unremarkable proposition that Pounce USA is only

9

obligated to produce documents within its custody, possession, or control. Plaintiff’s
objection to that order is really a request for this court to define in the first instance

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

whether “custody, possession, or control” in Judge Laporte’s order required Pounce USA

12

to produce responsive Viera documents. While this court finds it unlikely that a

13

corporation can refuse to produce an officer’s responsive documents simply because

14

those documents are technically on another company’s email account, Judge Laporte

15

has not had the opportunity to definitively resolve that issue. Tellingly, plaintiff’s joint

16

letter brief that precipitated Judge Laporte’s order did not raise the present argument or

17

cite any of the same cases cited in plaintiff’s present objection.

18

In short, Judge Laporte’s order requiring Pounce USA to produce documents

19

within its custody, possession or control, is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law and

20

the court declines plaintiff’s invitation to define the scope of that order in the first instance.

21

The request is better raised with Judge Laporte as a motion for clarification. Accordingly,

22

plaintiff’s objection to Judge Laporte’s order is OVERRULED. Good cause appearing,

23

plaintiff’s motion to seal is GRANTED.

24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
Dated: September 6, 2018
26
27
28

__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
2