Facebook, Inc. et al v. Gajjar

Filing 60

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore regarding 54 , 55 , 56 11/2/21 Joint Discovery Letter Briefs. Defendant shall serve supplemental responses within 14 days of this order. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2021)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FACEBOOK, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

v.

Case No. 4:20-cv-02429-KAW
ORDER REGARDING 11/2/21 JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEFS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 54, 55, 56

BASANT GAJJAR,
Defendant.
On March 8, 2021, Defendant Basant Gajjar filed a motion to dismiss for lack of

13

jurisdiction. On May 4, 2021, the Court vacated the hearing on the pending motion to dismiss and

14

granted Plaintiffs Facebook, Inc. and Instagram, LLC’s request for leave to conduct jurisdictional

15

discovery. (Dkt. No. 40.) In its order, the Court advised the parties that it expected supplemental

16

briefing if, after the conclusion of the jurisdictional discovery, the parties believed that the motion

17

still required resolution. Id. at 2. Since then, the Court has approved three stipulations extending

18

the deadline to conduct jurisdictional discovery, which were sought because the parties were

19

engaging in settlement negotiations. (Dkt. Nos. 42, 45, 47.)

20

It appears that those negotiations were not fruitful, because, on October 28, 2021, Plaintiffs

21

filed a request for a telephonic conference to enforce the Court’s meet and confer requirement

22

pursuant to Paragraph 17 of the undersigned’s standing order. (Dkt. No. 49.) Therein, Plaintiffs

23

included Defendant’s position, which, at the time, Defendant insisted on including in full for each

24

disputed request rather than by reference:

25
26
27
28

This discovery and the lawsuit is nothing but mean-spirited
overkill designed to punish a foreign national for the prior actions of
third party advertisers over whom he has no control. As of
September, Plaintiffs Facebook (and Instagram) had a market
capitalization of ~$1.7 trillion and are bludgeoning a Thai resident
with endless litigation and excessive discovery that goes well
beyond an effort to assess jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have already

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

achieved the stated aim of this litigation, which is the complete
cessation of Leadcloak. 100% of the claimed misconduct on
Plaintiffs’ websites were admittedly caused by third party
advertisers – not by Defendant Gajjar. It has long been true that
Leadcloak software could not be purchased by customers/IP
addresses based in the US (defeating special jurisdiction). On
October 23, 2021, Leadcloak’s website shut down for good. There is
nothing left for this Court to enjoin. There is no purpose in
persisting with this lawsuit. There is no basis for any more discovery
-- particularly the overbroad merits discovery being sought by
Plaintiffs.
_________________________________________________
___________________________.2 Unfortunately, Plaintiffs
were interested only in financially ruining him. They have
succeeded. The website is shut down. Mr. Gajjar can no longer
afford to have counsel defend him in this action. Accordingly,
Defendants’ counsel will be filing Motions to Withdraw as Counsel
by October 28, 2021.
This Court should not further contribute to the injustice created
by the insurmountable disparity of wealth between a one trillion
dollar company and a private individual living in Thailand. The
discovery sought by Plaintiffs should be denied.
(Dkt. No. 49 at 3:3-16) (emphasis in original.)
On October 29, 2021, the undersigned granted Plaintiffs’ request and explicitly advised

15

Defendant that “[t]he Court does not, however, find that the language Defendant purportedly

16

insisted on including repeatedly could be relevant to any discovery dispute….” (10/29/21 Order,

17

Dkt. No. 51 at 2 n.1 (citing Dkt. No. 49 at 3:3-16).) Additionally, defense counsel was cautioned

18

that, “while the Court is aware that defense counsel is seeking to withdraw from representation of

19

Defendant Basant Gajjar for nonpayment (Dkt. Nos. 48 & 50), they are reminded that they remain

20

counsel of record until the motions [to withdraw] are granted, and they are expected to act

21

accordingly.” (10/29/21 Order at 1.)

22

On November 2, 2021, the parties filed three separate joint discovery letters pertaining to

23

the sufficiency of Defendant’s responses to Plaintiffs’ requests for admission (Dkt. No. 54),

24

requests for production of documents (Dkt. No. 55), and interrogatories (Dkt. No. 56.) Despite the

25

October 29, 2021 admonition regarding the language quoted above, Defendant provided the exact

26

response–minus the redacted settlement communication, which the Court instructed Defendant

27

was improper–as his position in all three joint discovery letters. (Dkt. No. 55 at 1-2; Dkt. No. 55 at

28

2; Dkt. No. 56 at 2.) Defendant then proceeded to incorporate the same, untenable position by
2

1

reference in response to every disputed discovery request. To the extent that Defendant made any

2

additional arguments, they generally pertained to the merits of the case or were not a valid

3

objection. One such example was that, in response to Interrogatory No. 7, Defendant argued that

4

“‘explain the basis’ of multiple statements in [multiple] paragraphs is not an appropriate discovery

5

request.” (Dkt. No. 56 at 3.) While this interrogatory may have two discrete subparts, that would

6

only pose an issue if Plaintiffs exceeded the number of permitted interrogatories under Rule 33.

7

Since that has presumably not occurred, then Defendant must answer fully.

8

As a result, Defendant has failed to make a showing that he should not have to adequately

9

respond to discovery. In fact, the insistence on cutting and pasting a position that the undersigned
has already found to be irrelevant to any discovery dispute in three, separate discovery letters is

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

sanctionable under Rule 37. Defendant’s untenable position on the merits of the case does not

12

render the discovery objectionable under Rule 26. To the contrary, the disputed requests are

13

relevant to determining whether the Court may exercise jurisdiction over Defendant.

14

The Court again advises counsel that filing motions to withdraw does not relieve them of

15

their obligation to meaningfully engage in discovery. Counsel should not be abandoning their

16

client absent a court order permitting withdrawal, particularly since jurisdictional discovery has

17

been open for six months, and the pending motion to dismiss will require supplemental briefing.

18

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ request to compel supplemental responses to

19

their requests for admission, requests for production of documents, and interrogatories is

20

GRANTED. Defendant shall serve supplemental responses to the following discovery requests

21

within 14 days of this order:

22

•

Requests for Admission Nos. 1-4, and 6-11;

23

•

Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 1-6, 12, 14-17, 19, and 22;

24

•

Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 6-9, and 11.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 16, 2021
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28
3