*1 On September 12, 2022, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause, [Filing No. 401], in which it asked for input from the parties regarding completing the inspection of pro se Defendant Jaspreet Attariwala's devices and accounts in the possession of Plaintiff Bioconvergence LLC, dba Singota Solutions (“Singota”). More specifically, the Court asked for the parties’ comments on a proposed order for that process. [See Filing No. 401 at 5-6.]

Singota timely filed a response. [Filing No. 409.] Singota's response largely argues with the Court's prior characterization of its searches as producing overinclusive results and Singota generally proceeding in an inefficient manner. [Filing No. 409 at 1-2.] It also submits a joint declaration from two employees of the firm that Singota hired to analyze Ms. Attariwala's devices and data—James Vaughn and Andrew O'Shaunessy. [Filing No. 409-1.] Turning to the Court's proposed order, Singota offers the following substantive comments:

Ms. Attariwala also timely filed a response. [Filing No. 411.] She indicates that she “largely agrees” with the Court's proposal but says Singota should only be given 14 days (rather than 28 days) to provide her with the Good Faith List. [Filing No. 411 at 2.]

Once again, the Court continues to be troubled by the ongoing delay in completing tasks in this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 establishes that judges and litigants are bound “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” To that end, “a district court possesses inherent powers that are governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 45 (2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

*2 Turning to Singota's comments to the Court's proposed order, Singota's complaints about the amount of work and cost involved in completing the inspection of Ms. Attariwala's devices and accounts ignores the fact that it is Singota that has controlled the search process. It was Singota that decided to search every file on every device and account, rather than proceed in a more commonsense fashion anchored to locations where Ms. Attariwala is known to have copied Singota data. It was Singota who decided to proceed with overbroad search terms. In short, Singota cannot now be heard to complain about the amount of work that it created, and the Court will not allow this case to be further delayed because of Singota's choices. As to Singota's suggestion that Ms. Attariwala should identify the files that she does not want to be deleted from a list, the Court observes that Singota is the party with access to the documents themselves and knowledge about the nature of its own proprietary and confidential information. Finally, the Court observes that Ms. Attariwala has already consented to the deletion of the Conceded Data, [Filing No. 379 at 1-2.]

THEREFORE, the Court ORDERS as follows: