Ryu, Donna M., United States Magistrate Judge
v.
ANNA GATTI, et al., Defendants
ORDER ON ALMAWAVE USA'S MOTION TO COMPEL Re: Dkt. Nos. 392, 400
On January 6, 2016, the court ordered Plaintiff Loop AI Labs Inc. ("Loop") and Defendant Almawave USA, Inc. ("Almawave") to submit a joint discovery letter by January 15, 2016 regarding Almawave's motion to compel further responses to discovery by Loop. [Docket No. 355.] The parties were unable to file a joint letter, and on January 20, 2016, the court granted the parties leave to file separate letters. [Docket No. 399.] The parties timely filed the letters. [Docket Nos. 392-1, 400.]
The parties' lamentable discovery conduct has consumed an unjustifiable amount of court resources. [See Docket No. 271; see also Docket No. 415 (Feb. 5, 2016 Order by Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam).] Their behavior has impeded the court's ability to control its docket and to provide prompt attention to the needs of litigants in other cases. Accordingly, instead of providing the parties with a detailed (and time-consuming) analysis, the court makes these rulings in summary form.
A. Requests for production ("RFPs")
Almawave's discovery letter does not set forth the substance of the parties' dispute about its RFPs. Instead, Almawave incorporates by reference a meet and confer letter. This is improper and unhelpful. Almawave's motion to compel Loop to provide further responses to its RFPs is denied without prejudice.
B. Interrogatories
Interrogatory nos. 3, 5, and 7 are permissible interrogatories seeking the factual bases for Loop's allegations. Loop shall serve amended responses to interrogatory nos. 3, 5, and 7 by March 15, 2016.
Interrogatory no. 4 asks Loop to describe "any investigation conducted regarding potential claims against, or potential wrongdoing committed by Almawave, including but not limited to identifying the date when any such investigation was conducted and who conducted the investigation." Almawave did not explain how the information sought by the interrogatory is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). Accordingly, its motion to compel further response to interrogatory no. 4 is denied without prejudice.
C. Deposition notices
Bart Peintner and Patrick Ehlen appear to be percipient witnesses. Loop must produce Peintner and Ehlen for deposition by the close of discovery. The parties shall immediately meet and confer regarding deposition dates for these two witnesses.
D. Format/manner of Loop's production of documents
Loop has made its document production available to Almawave and all other parties via an online application that makes it impossible to download or print the documents in batches, or print certain documents at all. Its production is also missing certain metadata requested by Almawave.
Loop's method of production unreasonably restricts the parties' ability to work with Loop's documents. The existing confidentiality order adequately addresses Loop's concerns about confidentiality. By no later than March 14, 2016, Loop shall provide its entire document production to all parties on a disk or via Dropbox. Loop must produce its documents in searchable form unless the cost of doing so would be significant and prohibitive. If this is the case, Loop shall notify the court of the exact expense involved in providing its document production in a searchable format by March 14, 2016.
Loop's production must include To/From/CC information for email, and must enable reviewing parties to determine whether any specific email included an attachment(s) or was part of a chain, i.e., must indicate a family or parent/child relationship between emails and attachments.
IT IS SO ORDERED.