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)