Hullinger v. Anand
Hullinger v. Anand
2016 WL 3460789 (C.D. Cal. 2016)
March 16, 2016
Mumm, Frederick F., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The court ordered the Responding Parties to produce all documents responsive to the requests that they had agreed to produce, as well as to provide the metadata and other formatting information that plaintiffs sought. The parties were also ordered to meet to discuss and agree on the protocol for the production of metadata and formatting information. If the Responding Parties no longer had possession, custody, or control of the documents, they must provide a verified statement explaining the circumstances. All statements and documents must be served on plaintiffs within 20 days.
Additional Decisions
Jason Hullinger, an individual, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Kunal Anand, an individual, et al., Defendants
v.
Kunal Anand, an individual, et al., Defendants
Case No. CV 15-7185 SJO (FFMx)
United States District Court, C.D. California
Signed March 16, 2016
Counsel
Bassil George Madanat, Guy Ruttenberg, Dennis Hiunam Ma, Ruttenberg IP Law, a Professional Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs.Allan E. Anderson, Jerrold E. Abeles, Douglas Eugene Hewlett, Jr., Franjo M. Dolenac, Jeffrey Robert Makin, Arent Fox LLP, Jean Y. Rhee, Marc A. Fenster, Brian D. Ledahl, Paul A. Kroeger, Matthew Alan Rips, Russ August and Kabat LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Stephen A. Scott, Dara M. Tang, Hayes Scott Bonino Ellingson and McLay LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, for Defendants.
Mumm, Frederick F., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS (DKT NO. 100)
*1 On February 16, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel defendants Prevoty, Inc., Kunal Anand, and Julien Bellanger (“Responding Parties”) to produce documents that Responding Parties agreed to produce in response to plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production to each of the Responding Parties. Plaintiffs set the hearing on the motion for March 8, 2016. On February 19, 2016, the Court took the matter under submission and vacated the hearing date.
Plaintiffs seek the production of documents and production of certain documents in a particular format (e.g., including metadata). Specifically, the motion seeks the production of documents responsive to Request Nos. 1-14, 16-18, 21-26, 28, 29, 31-33, 38, 56, 61, 65, 66, 71, 72, 81, 82, 84, and 86-91 to Anand; Request Nos. 5, 8-11, 16, 17, 21, 22, 70, 71, 80-83, 85-90 to Bellanger; and Request Nos. 20, 28, 29, 31-33, 70, 71, 80-83, 85, and 86 to Prevoty. The Responding Parties contend that they have produced most of the documents in dispute. With respect to the format issue, Responding Parties express their willingness to produce documents in whatever format plaintiffs specify.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1) Responding Parties produce all documents responsive to the foregoing requests that they have agreed to produce but have not yet been produced within 20 days of the date of this order;
(2) Responding Parties provide the metadata and other formatting information that plaintiffs seek. The parties are ordered to meet, in person or by telephone, within 10 days of the date of this order to discuss and agree on the protocol for the production of metadata and formatting information. Both sides thereafter will be expected to comply with the agreed protocol in producing documents.
(3) To the extent Responding Parties contend that they do not have possession, custody, or control of responsive documents, or that they already have produced such documents, they must provide a verified statement to that effect. If Responding Parties had possession, custody, or control of responsive documents at one time, but contend that they no longer have possession, custody, or control of them, they must provide a verified statement that explains the circumstances and approximate date of their loss of possession, custody, or control to the best of Responding Parties' knowledge.
All statements and documents required by this order must be served on plaintiffs within 20 days of the date hereof.
Given the number of discovery motions that have been filed in this action, the Court will reserve ruling on plaintiffs' request for fees at this time.