Filed: Jul. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 06, 2018
Summary: ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF RE PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Re: Dkt. No. 59 SUSAN VAN KEULEN , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is the parties' joint letter brief requesting that the Court compel Plaintiffs to provide further responses to two interrogatories (Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 12) and three requests for production (RFP Nos. 6, 9, and 13). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court deems this matter suitable for determination w
Summary: ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF RE PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Re: Dkt. No. 59 SUSAN VAN KEULEN , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is the parties' joint letter brief requesting that the Court compel Plaintiffs to provide further responses to two interrogatories (Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 12) and three requests for production (RFP Nos. 6, 9, and 13). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court deems this matter suitable for determination wi..
More
ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF RE PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Re: Dkt. No. 59
SUSAN VAN KEULEN, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is the parties' joint letter brief requesting that the Court compel Plaintiffs to provide further responses to two interrogatories (Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 12) and three requests for production (RFP Nos. 6, 9, and 13). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court deems this matter suitable for determination without oral argument. Based on consideration of the parties' submission, the case file, and relevant law, the Court ORDERS as follows:
Interrogatory No. 11: Plaintiffs' amended response is sufficient, and Google's request for further response is DENIED. Depositions are the most appropriate way for Google to obtain the additional information it seeks.
Interrogatory No. 12: The interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome insofar as it seeks information about "each COMMUNICATION." Google is entitled to as much detail as is available on the two specifically identified conversations, and Plaintiffs will be limited at trial to whatever evidence of these conversations they provide to Google in discovery. Plaintiffs' amended response is sufficient, particularly in light of Plaintiffs' confirmation in the joint letter brief that they do not know the identity of the Google employees who participated in these conversations. Depositions are the most appropriate way for Google to further explore the details of these conversations.
RFP No. 6: The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the information sought is not relevant, and therefore Google's request for further response is DENIED.
RFP No. 9: Plaintiffs propose a compromise production of additional information and claim that efforts to produce that information are underway. Plaintiffs must complete that additional production by July 11, 2018. If following review of Plaintiff's supplemental production Google believes that the production is inadequate, it may renew its motion on this issue no later than July 18, 2018.
RFP No. 13: The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the information sought is not relevant, particularly in light of the additional information they intend to produce in response to RFP No. 9, and therefore Google's request for further response is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
