Interserve, Inc. et al v. Fusion Garage PTE. LTD

Filing 58

REPLY to Response to Motion re 47 First MOTION to Compel Documents filed byFusion Garage PTE. LTD. (Doolittle, Patrick) (Filed on 4/8/2010)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Claude M. Stern (Bar No. 96737) 2 [e-mail] Patrick Doolittle (Bar No. 203659) 3 [e-mail] 50 California Street, 22nd Floor 4 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] 6 Attorneys for Defendant Fusion Garage PTE Ltd. 7 8 9 10 11 INTERSERVE, INC. dba TECHCRUNCH, a Delaware corporation, and CRUNCHPAD, 12 INC., a Delaware corporation, 13 14 vs. Plaintiffs, CASE NO. C 09-cv-5812 RS (PVT) REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF FUSION GARAGE'S MOTION TO COMPEL Date: April 12, 2010 Time: 2:00 p.m. Judge: Hon. Patricia Trumbull UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 FUSION GARAGE PTE LTD., a Singapore company, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
04049.51632/3429383.1

Case No. C 09-cv-5812 RS REPLY BRIEF FOR MOTION TO COMPEL

1 2

Introduction This is a simple motion to compel. Plaintiffs sought leave of court to take discovery prior

3 to the Rule 26(f) Conference. Plaintiffs then filed for a preliminary injunction. In response to 4 Fusion Garage's Requests for Production, Plaintiffs agreed to produce documents. However, they 5 only produced a small batch of documents and Fusion Garage was forced to move to compel. 6 Accordingly, after seeking early discovery themselves, Plaintiffs turned around and stonewalled 7 Fusion Garage in discovery, thus necessitating motion to compel practice. 8 On April 7, 2010, Plaintiffs produced approximately 3,500 additional pages of documents.

9 If Plaintiffs certify that their April 7 production renders their document production complete, this 10 motion is moot. If it is not complete, the Court should order Plaintiffs to comply with their written 11 responses and produce all responsive documents. 12 13 Argument Plaintiffs' Opposition Brief to the present motion (Dkt. 52) attempts to side-step or excuse

14 their own failure to produce documents by citing Fusion Garage's alleged failure to produce 15 documents. See id. at 1 ("it is Defendant's failure to produce documents and Defendant's 16 delaying tactics ­ in the face of this Court's previous order allowing expedited discovery ­ that 17 should trouble the Court.") (emphasis in original). This argument is a red herring. Plaintiffs 18 ignore that the parties are in a fundamentally different posture with respect to discovery: Fusion 19 Garage filed a motion for protective order regarding many of Plaintiffs' Requests for Production, 20 and that motion is still under submission. Moreover, Fusion Garage has objected to many of 21 Plaintiffs' requests and, in meet and confer discussions, the parties agreed to "table" many of 22 Plaintiffs' Requests for Production pending the Court's ruling on the protective order motion. 23 Plaintiffs also ignore the fact that they were the ones who chose to file for a preliminary

24 injunction. Thus, Plaintiffs presumably felt that they can fully and fairly litigate the preliminary 25 injunction motion without their opponent's documents. Given the drastic remedy Plaintiffs seek, 26 Fusion Garage wants--and is entitled to--Plaintiffs' documents regarding the alleged "joint 27 venture" and other core topics that form the bases for Plaintiffs' causes of action and their 28 preliminary injunction motion.
04049.51632/3429383.1

REPLY BRIEF FOR MOTION TO COMPEL

-1-

Case No. C 09-cv-5812 RS

1

Plaintiffs argue that Fusion Garage's immediate demand for all responsive documents

2 creates an "impossible deadline" (id. at 2) and that Plaintiffs should be allowed to review and 3 produce documents at their own pace. Id. at 1. But any scheduling difficulties are entirely of 4 Plaintiffs' own making. As stated above, it was Plaintiffs who chose to file for a preliminary 5 injunction before either side produced many documents. Moreover, Plaintiffs rebuffed Fusion 6 Garage's proposal to move the preliminary injunction hearing to the end of May ­ a proposal that 7 Fusion Garage offered precisely so that the parties would have extra time to attempt to try and 8 resolve discovery issues. Having filed for an early preliminary injunction and having refused 9 Fusion Garage's reasonable offer to extend the deadlines for that motion approximately a month, 10 Plaintiffs cannot now complain about the difficulties of producing documents quickly and 11 expeditiously so that Fusion Garage may review these documents and use them to oppose the 12 preliminary injunction motion. 13 For the foregoing reasons, Fusion Garage respectfully requests that the Court grant its

14 motion to compel and order Plaintiffs to produce all responsive documents. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
04049.51632/3429383.1

DATED: April 8, 2010

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

By

/s/ Patrick Doolittle Patrick C. Doolittle Attorneys for Defendant Fusion Garage PTE Ltd.

REPLY BRIEF FOR MOTION TO COMPEL

-2-

Case No. C 09-cv-5812 RS