Bakhtiari Corporation et al v. Register Tapes Unlimited, Inc. et al

Filing 33

ORDER RE 31 LETTER BRIEF. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on June 10, 2013. (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

BAKHTIARI CORPORATION, et. al.,

12

Plaintiffs,
v.

13
14

REGISTER TAPES UNLIMITED INC., et. al.
Defendants.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 12-5183 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE LETTER BRIEF
(Re: Docket No. 31)

16

On May 22, 2013, the court granted-in-part Plaintiffs Bakhtiari Corporation, et. al.’s

17

(“Bakhtiari”) motion to compel further responses to their first set of requests for productions

18

(“RFPs”) and specifically required Defendants Register Tapes Unlimited, Inc., et. al. (“RTU”) to

19
20
21

complete that production by June 7, 2013.1 On the day of the production deadline, RTU filed a
letter brief raising two issues regarding its inability to comply with that order.
First, RTU states that it is unable to respond to RFP 84 by the court’s June 7 deadline.

22
23

While the court expresses serious reservations in granting an extension only brought to the court’s

24

attention on the last day RTU was ordered to comply, RTU may have until June 20, 2013 to

25

complete its production.

26
27
28

1

See Docket No. 30.
1

Case No.: C 12-5183 LHK (PSG)
ORDER

Second, despite the court’s unequivocal ruling on the matter, RTU now argues it does not

1
2

have to produce profit and loss information at this time pursuant to California Civil Code Section

3

3295(c). However, this court is not required to apply California procedural law, 2 and under Fed.

4

R. Civ. P. 26 RTU’s financial information must be produced no later than June 20, 2013.

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 10, 2013

8

_________________________________
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

2

See, e.g., Charles O. Bradley Trust v. Zenith Capital LLC, Case No. C-04-2239 JSW (EMC),
2005 WL 1030218, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2005) (holding Cal. Civ. Code § 3295 to be
inapplicable to discovery in the federal district courts); see also Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd.,
179 F.R.D. 281, 285 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (ruling that Section 3295 is “clearly a procedural law”).
2
Case No.: C 12-5183 LHK (PSG)
ORDER