Applied Professional Training, Inc. v. Mira Costa College et al
Filing
126
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 122 Joint Motion for Discovery Dispute re Written Discovery Requests Seeking Certain Financial Info from Defendant. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 1/9/2012. (Dembin, Mitchell)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
APPLIED PROFESSIONAL TRAINING,
INC.,
CASE NO. 10cv1372 DMS (MDD)
12
ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR
DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY
DISPUTE - WRITTEN DISCOVERY
REGARDING TELESKILLS
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
14
MIRA COSTA COLLEGE, et al.,
[DOC. NO. 122]
15
Defendants.
16
17
Before the Court is the third Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute filed on
18
January 3, 2012. (Doc. No. 122). Plaintiff challenges Defendants’ refusal to respond to certain
19
interrogatories and requests for production. Defendants resist discovery primarily on grounds of
20
relevance. The interrogatories and requests for production fit primarily within two categories: 1)
21
Financial information from Defendant Teleskills regarding photovoltaic installer classes provided
22
by it, Ameri-Skills and Telco Training; and, 2) Information regarding communications between
23
any of these entities and Horizon Tuition Aid.
24
Background
25
Plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of educational and technical training.
26
Defendant Teleskills, LLC, d/b/a Ameri-Skills, is a competitor of Plaintiff alleged to have been
27
created by former employees of Plaintiff. Plaintiff has alleged several causes of action against
28
-1-
10cv1372 DMS (MDD)
1
Defendants including copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair
2
competition. (Doc. No. 1). The allegations of copyright infringement pertain to certain course and
3
reference books and materials alleged to be protected by copyright registrations. The allegations of
4
trade secret misappropriation pertain to contact and sales databases and lists of customers,
5
students, businesses, organizations, instructors and key contact persons and to student rosters and
6
lists. The unfair competition claim relates to Defendants’ acquisition and use of Plaintiff’s
7
copyrighted material and proprietary information in the marketplace. (Id.).
8
9
Legal Standard
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow for broad discovery, authorizing
10
parties to obtain discovery regarding “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim
11
or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Also, “[f]or good cause, the court may order discovery of
12
any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.” Id. Relevant information for
13
discovery purposes includes any information “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
14
admissible evidence,” and need not be admissible at trial to be discoverable. Id. There is no
15
requirement that the information sought directly relate to a particular issue in the case. Rather,
16
relevance encompasses any matter that “bears on” or could reasonably lead to matter that could
17
bear on, any issue that is or may be presented in the case. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437
18
U.S. 340, 354 (1978). District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for discovery
19
purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Similarly, district courts have
20
broad discretion to limit discovery where the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or
21
duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome,
22
or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Limits also should be imposed where the burden
23
or expense outweighs the likely benefits. Id.
24
“An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired under Rule 26(b).” Fed. R.
25
Civ. P. 33(a)(2). The responding party must answer each interrogatory by stating the appropriate
26
objection(s) with specificity or by “answer[ing] separately and fully in writing under oath.” Id. at
27
33(b). The responding party has the option in certain circumstances to answer an interrogatory by
28
-2-
10cv1372 DMS (MDD)
1
specifying responsive records and making those records available to the interrogating party. Id. at
2
33(d).
3
Similarly, a party may request the production of any document within the scope of Rule
4
26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “For each item or category, the response must either state that
5
inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the request,
6
including the reasons.” Id. at 34(b). The responding party is responsible for all items in “the
7
responding party’s possession, custody, or control.” Id. at 34(a)(1). Actual possession, custody or
8
control is not required. Rather, “[a] party may be ordered to produce a document in the possession
9
of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the document or has control over the
10
entity who is in possession of the document. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620
11
(N.D.Cal.1995).
12
Discussion
13
1.
Financial Information Regarding Photovoltaic Installer Classes
14
In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges copyright infringement claims regarding manuals for
15
photovoltaic installation. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery regarding Defendants’ acquisition and
16
use of the allegedly infringing materials. It also is alleged that Defendants benefitted financially by
17
using the infringing materials. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to discovery regarding the extent
18
to which the sale or use of these materials brought a financial benefit to Defendants. Defendants’
19
argument that information regarding Telco Training is irrelevant has been ruled upon previously
20
and Defendants did not prevail. (See Doc. No. 112). Accordingly, Interrogatories 17 through 20
21
and requests for production 76 through 87 call for relevant information and a response is required.
22
Plaintiff’s request that responsive information, if stored electronically, be produced in its
23
native format is not unreasonable. It is not incumbent upon Defendants, however, to provide
24
Plaintiff with any hardware and software needed to view the responsive data. Plaintiff either must
25
accept the data in a common format, and Defendants must produce the data in that format, or
26
Plaintiff will have to obtain the necessary licenses to view the data in native form.
27
//
28
-3-
10cv1372 DMS (MDD)
1
2.
Information regarding communications with Horizon Tuition Aid
2
Interrogatory 21 and requests for production 88 and 89 pertain to communications between
3
Defendants and Horizon Tuition Aid. The relevance of this information is not apparent and
4
Plaintiff did not mention it in its Memorandum in Support. To the extent that students received
5
financial aid for classes being taught with the aid of allegedly infringing materials or were
6
unlawfully solicited on grounds that their identities were trade secrets allegedly misappropriated by
7
Defendants, it does not appear that communications with financial aid provider sheds any light on
8
these claims. No further response is required.
9
3.
10
Teleskills Structure
Interrogatory 22 requires Defendants to identify any and all names of any businesses
11
operated by Defendant Teleskills, LLC and its officers, directors, managers, members and
12
employees from inception to present. Defendants claim this interrogatory to be overbroad and
13
irrelevant. Plaintiff counters that the discovery of another potentially infringing entity operated by
14
Defendants, Telco Training, provides the basis to request whether any other such entities exist.
15
The Court finds the interrogatory to be overbroad. The Court will require a response to the
16
extent of identifying any vocational training or vocational education business with which any
17
allegedly infringing or allegedly misappropriated information was shared or used.
18
Conclusion
19
To the extent that information is required to be produced by this Order, production must
20
occur no later than January 31, 2012, absent agreement to the contrary or further Order of this
21
Court.
22
IT IS SO ORDERED:
23
DATED: January 9, 2012
24
25
26
Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin
U.S. Magistrate Judge
27
28
-4-
10cv1372 DMS (MDD)
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?