Neustar, Inc , et al v. F5 Networks, Inc,
Filing
67
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO COMPEL by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying [42-1] Motion to Compel; denying 46 Motion to Compel (psglc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
NEUSTAR, INC., a Delaware corporation, and )
QUOVA, INC., a Delaware corporation,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
F5 NETWORKS, INC., a Washington
)
corporation,
)
)
Defendant.
)
Case No.: 5:12-cv-02574-EJD (PSG)
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO
COMPEL
(Re: Docket No. 42, 46)
16
17
The parties are familiar with the facts of the case and of this particular dispute, and so the
18
court provides only a brief summary of the background before setting forth its reasoning. Plaintiffs
19
20
Neustar, Inc., and Quova, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) entered into a licensing agreement with F5 Networks,
21
Inct., (“F5”) under which F5 was permitted to use geolocation data provided by Plaintiffs for
22
certain purposes on certain devices. 1 This action stems from a dispute over that agreement. 2 The
23
parties disagree as to both the nature and scope of the limitations on the data’s use.
24
25
26
1
See Docket No. 1.
2
See id.
27
28
1
Case No.: 5:12-cv-02574-EJD (PSG)
ORDER
The parties obtained a stay in this matter in order to focus their efforts on settlement talks. 3
1
2
Unfortunately, the talks did not result in an agreement. Judge Davila then granted the parties’ two
3
requests for extensions of discovery deadlines. 4 On the very last day of the extended fact discovery
4
period, the parties filed multiple motions to compel production of additional evidence. 5 Of those
5
6
7
8
9
motions, two remain pending. The first seeks to compel the production of communications
between F5’s sales agents and its customers as they relate to the use of Plaintiffs’ data, 6 and the
second seeks to compel production of two laptops used by Plaintiffs’ employees. 7 Having
considered the parties’ papers and arguments, the court DENIES both motions.
I.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
LEGAL STANDARDS
11
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) provides that parties “may obtain discovery regarding any
12
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” The relevant information
13
“need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
14
discovery of admissible evidence.” Relevance under Rule 26(b) is broadly defined, “although it is
15
16
not without ultimate and necessary boundaries.” 8
17
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) provides one such a limit, mandating that the court limit the
18
frequency or extent of discovery if: (1) “the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or
19
duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome,
20
21
3
See Docket No. 36.
22
4
See Docket Nos. 38, 41.
23
5
See Docket Nos. 42, 43, 45, 46.
24
6
See Docket No. 42.
25
7
See Docket No. 46.
26
8
27
See Gonzales v. Google Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 680 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (internal citations and
quotations omitted).
28
2
Case No.: 5:12-cv-02574-EJD (PSG)
ORDER
1
or less expensive;” (2) “the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the
2
information by discovery in the action;” or (3) “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
3
outweighs its likely benefit.” Upon a motion to compel brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
4
37(a)(3), the moving party has the burden of demonstrating relevance. 9
5
6
7
8
9
Regarding electronically stored information, a party need not provide such discovery if the
requesting party shows such information is “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or
cost.” 10 The court may nevertheless order such discovery if the requesting party, in turn, shows
“good cause.” 11 The court is required to limit discovery if it determines that: (i) the discovery
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from a less burdensome
11
source, (ii) the requesting party had ample opportunity to seek the discovery elsewhere, or (iii) the
12
burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs the likely benefit, all things considered. 12
13
II.
DISCUSSION
14
A.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel “Compliance With Discovery Order”
15
Plaintiffs’ motion ostensibly seeks to enforce this court’s discovery order of April 24,
16
17
2013, 13 arguing that the order required F5 to produce all documents from all sources in its
18
control. 14 Plaintiffs also argue that the evidence is necessary to rebut anticipated attacks on their
19
damage estimate. 15 F5 rejects these claims, arguing that the court’s April 24 order was limited to
20
documents held by five custodians delineated in the moving papers and that the burden of
21
9
22
See Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 610 (N.D. Cal. 1995).
10
23
11
24
12
25
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B).
Id.
See id. subsection (b)(2)(D).
13
See Docket No. 30.
14
See Docket No. 42 at 2-3.
15
See id. at 3.
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 5:12-cv-02574-EJD (PSG)
ORDER
1
2
producing additional documents this late in the discovery process is grossly disproportionate to any
benefit that the documents may provide. 16
3
F5’s interpretation of this court’s order is correct. The papers underlying that motion
4
explicitly reference the “five custodians to be searched.” 17 The motions further represented that the
5
6
7
8
9
parties had reached an “agreement to move forward with some initial email discovery as to [five]
key custodians,” 18 such that the lingering disagreement was limited to the adequacy of the search
terms to be used in locating relevant documents. 19 The court issued its ruling with that
understanding in mind 20 and now resolves any lingering doubts as to its meaning: under the April
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
24 order, Plaintiffs are entitled only to documents responsive to the requests at issue that were in
11
the possession of Calvin Rowland, Nate Meyer, Scot Rogers, Dan Matte, or Mike Schrock.
12
13
Plaintiffs also have failed to demonstrate that the benefit to their damages argument would
be sufficient to justify the burden on F5. Plaintiffs failed to timely depose F5’s third-party
14
customers who may have been able to speak directly to the way they used Plaintiffs’ data.
15
16
Plaintiffs themselves highlighted an email that pointed them directly to an F5 employee with
17
information relevant to their purposes, and yet Plaintiffs also failed to depose that individual.
18
While Plaintiffs were certainly entitled to spend their deposition budget and other resources as they
19
see fit, the court is loath to relieve Plaintiffs of the consequences of those choices.
20
16
See Docket No. 57 at 1-2.
21
17
Docket No. 22 at 2.
22
18
Exhibit I to Docket 17.
23
19
See Docket 22 at 1; see also Exhibit I to Docket 17.
24
20
25
26
27
See Docket No. 30 at 2-3 (“Plaintiffs proposed limiting each party’s initial search to (1) email
archives of five custodians on each side, (2) within the time frame of the Agreement and related
negotiations, and (3) using a set of search terms proposed by the other side. . . . F5 [argued] that
the proposed terms would result in extraordinary burden [and] proposed an alternative set of search
terms. . . . Unfortunately, the parties were unable to agree on search terms, and so Plaintiffs filed
this motion.”).
28
4
Case No.: 5:12-cv-02574-EJD (PSG)
ORDER
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of documents is DENIED.
1
2
B.
F5’s Motion to Compel Production for Inspection
F5 asks the court to require Plaintiffs to produce two laptops used by its employees on the
3
4
grounds that there has been a “clear breakdown” in the process of collecting and disclosing emails
5
to which it is entitled. 21 Plaintiffs object to this request on two grounds. First, they argue that F5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
has not demonstrated that the benefit of such discovery would outweigh the burden it would
impose on them. 22 Second, they point out that F5’s request for one of the laptops was untimely, as
it was raised for the first time after both the service of discovery requests and the completion of
fact discovery in general. 23
11
12
13
14
The court agrees with Plaintiffs that production of the laptops is too rash a remedy at this
stage. Although Plaintiffs’ initial email productions were obviously incomplete, the court
understands that they have since supplemented the productions to complete them. Further, as
Plaintiffs point out in their opposition, production of electronic devices for physical inspection is
15
16
most commonly granted where there is evidence of bad faith by the opposing party. 24 Here,
17
Plaintiffs have already produced the emails that raised concerns for F5, and they commissioned a
18
full forensic inspection of one at least one of the laptops to recover any additional emails that may
19
be relevant. 25 F5 fails to demonstrate how, specifically, these measures are insufficient to remedy
20
Plaintiffs initial error. Finally, F5 has failed to identify what specific documents it hopes to recover
21
from these inspections that have not already been produced. Without a clear and specific objective,
22
21
Docket No. 46 at 5.
22
See Docket No. 55 at 4-8.
23
See id. at 8.
24
See id. at 6-7.
23
24
25
26
25
27
28
It is unclear from the papers whether Plaintiffs have searched Mr. Casabonne’s laptop for
additional emails that may not have appeared on the server or conducted a forensic inspection of
the computer for previously deleted emails.
5
Case No.: 5:12-cv-02574-EJD (PSG)
ORDER
1
2
3
the court is not inclined to authorize an intrusive fishing expedition after discovery in this matter
has already closed.
If Plaintiffs have not yet conducted a search and forensic inspection of Mr. Casabonne’s
4
laptop for emails missed in their initial disclosure, they should do so immediately. With respect to
5
any further relief, F5’s motion is hereby DENIED.
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
Dated: October 17, 2013
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Case No.: 5:12-cv-02574-EJD (PSG)
ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?