24/7 Customer, Inc. v. 24-7 Intouch et al

Filing 95

Order on 70 Discovery Dispute Joint Report 1 by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2015)

E-Filed 12/7/15

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

24/7 CUSTOMER, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 14-cv-02561-EJD (HRL)
ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT 1

v.
24-7 INTOUCH, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 70

Defendants.
24/7 Customer, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) sues 24-7 Intouch and Ascenda USA, Inc. (“Defendants”)

13

for trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition.

On October 8, 2015

14

Plaintiff moved the court to enforce a settlement agreement and Defendants opposed the motion.

15

The parties disputed whether, in light of the pending dispositive motion, discovery should

16

proceed. Fact discovery closed on October 16, 2015. The parties were unable to resolve their

17

dispute and so they filed Discovery Dispute Joint Report (“DDJR”) 1 on October 19, 2015. Dkt.

18

No. 70. Judge Edward J. Davila, the presiding district judge, denied Plaintiff’s motion to enforce

19

settlement. Dkt. No. 92.

20

Defendants assert that Plaintiff stopped participating in discovery several weeks before fact

21

discovery closed and that Plaintiff therefore failed to fulfill its discovery obligations. Plaintiff

22

responds that it could have fulfilled its discovery obligations if settlement had not made further

23

discovery imprudent. Dkt. No. 70 at 6. Defendants request that the court compel the production

24

of the discovery materials withheld by Plaintiff as well as the availability of deponents for

25

depositions. Id. at 10.

26

The purported settlement was the basis for Plaintiff withholding discovery materials and

27

for Plaintiff failing to provide deponents for depositions, but Judge Davila has since ruled that

28

there was no valid settlement in this case. The court therefore compels Plaintiff to, within 14

1

days, complete its document production, respond in full to Defendants’ written discovery requests,

2

and provide deposition dates on or before January 21, 2016 for each of its noticed deponents.

3

Plaintiff shall also make all of its witnesses available for deposition on or before January 21, 2016.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 12/7/15

6
________________________
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2