ORDER ADJUDICATING DISCOVERY DISPUTES

Re: ECF No. 76

LAUREL BEELER, Magistrate Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Judge Hamilton referred all discovery matters to the undersigned.1 Currently pending is a joint letter brief from the parties regarding plaintiff Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC ("GoDaddy")'s jurisdictional discovery of defendant Salman Ghaznavi.

This litigation centers around allegations that the defendants are registering and operating internet domains that are identical to or confusingly similar of GoDaddy's website and trademarks, in order to siphon off traffic from GoDaddy's sites and to send out spam advertisements to consumers.2 Mr. Ghaznavi moved to quash service of the summons and dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.3 Judge Hamilton held that "a more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary to determine whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Salman Ghaznavi — including Salman Ghaznavi's place of residence, the extent of his ownership of and control over the various entities in plaintiff's complaint, and whether he personally conducted or directed any of the actions alleged in the complaint." Go Daddy Operating Co., LLC v. Ghaznavi, No. 17-cv-06545-PJH, 2018 WL 1091257, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2018).4 Judge Hamilton deferred judgment on Mr. Ghaznavi's motion to dismiss and allowed GoDaddy to take jurisdictional discovery. Id. at *5-6.

The parties raise four discovery disputes in their joint letter brief. The undersigned can adjudicate the disputes without a hearing, N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 7-1(b), and rules as follows.

ANALYSIS

1. Temporal Scope of Jurisdictional Discovery

GoDaddy's compromise position is to limit its discovery requests to the time period from January 1, 2012 to the present.5 Mr. Ghaznavi's compromise position is to limit his responses to GoDaddy's discovery requests to the time period from January 1, 2015 to the present.6

Most courts look back between three and seven years from the date that the litigation was filed to assess whether there is general jurisdiction over a defendant. See Kormylo v. Forever Resorts, LLC, No. 13-cv-511 JM (WVG), 2015 WL 106379, at *10 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2015) (citing 4 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1067.5 & n.1175 (3d ed. 2002 & Supp. 2014); Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 569-70 (2d Cir. 1996)); Calix Networks, Inc. v. Wi-Lan, Inc., No. C-09-06038-CRB (DMR), 2010 WL 3515759, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2010) (citing Metro. Life, 84 F.3d at 569). Considering GoDaddy's allegations and Judge Hamilton's order, the undersigned finds that discovery from January 1, 2012 to the present — a period that begins a little less than six years before this litigation was filed — is appropriate here. Among other things, Judge Hamilton permitted discovery to determine the extent of Mr. Ghaznavi's ownership of and control over the various entities that GoDaddy identifies in its complaint ("Entities"); these have operated since before 2015 and (so GoDaddy alleges) have been part of Mr. Ghaznavi's alleged scheme since before 2015.7 The fact that Mr. Ghaznavi is purportedly has been a citizen and resident of Pakistan and has only traveled to the United States twice since 20158 does not address whether discovery should be extended through 2012 (as Mr. Ghaznavi says nothing about his residency or other forum contacts during that time).

2. Mr. Ghaznavi's Business Dealings

Judge Hamilton permitted discovery to determine the extent of Mr. Ghaznavi's ownership of and control over the Entities. GoDaddy may properly take discovery of Mr. Ghaznavi's business dealings, including what Mr. Ghaznavi's successors-in-interest, predecessors-in-interest, agents, representatives, or others acting on his behalf might have done to exercise ownership or control for Mr. Ghaznavi over the Entities. GoDaddy's requests, which are (by definition) limited to documents and information in Mr. Ghaznavi's possession, custody, and control, and which call for documents and information about what Mr. Ghaznavi or others acting on his behalf did vis-à-vis the Entities, are not overbroad. Mr. Ghaznavi's objection to these requests are overruled.

3. Mr. Ghaznavi's Numerosity Objection

"Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts." Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). "Although the rule does not define the term `discrete subparts,' a number of courts have construed the term to mean that `interrogatory subparts are to be counted as one interrogatory if they are logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question.'" In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., No. 13-md-02420-YGR (DMR), 2015 WL 1221924, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2015) (internal ellipsis omitted) (citing cases).

Mr. Ghaznavi objects to interrogatories number 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10 as being comprised of discrete subparts. Mr. Ghaznavi's objections to interrogatories 4, 5, 8, and 10 are unavailing. Interrogatories 4 and 5 ask about activities by Mr. Ghaznavi or businesses in which Mr. Ghaznavi has an investment, ownership, or supervisory interest. These are logically and factually subsumed and related, and Mr. Ghaznavi's attempt to split them into separate interrogatories about himself, on the one hand, and the businesses in which he has an investments, ownership, or supervisory interest, on the other, is not well taken. Likewise, interrogatories 8 and 10 ask about websites Mr. Ghaznavi owns, operates, populates, etc., and his attempt to split them (e.g., website hits versus website visits versus website downloads) into separate interrogatories is not well taken. Interrogatory 3 presents a closer case: it asks about Mr. Ghaznavi's relationship with 11 different Entities. The main thrust of the interrogatory, however, is about Mr. Ghaznavi, not the 11 different Entities. GoDaddy's citation to Lithium Ion and to Erfindergemeinschaft Uropep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co., 315 F.R.D. 191 (E.D. Tex. 2016) is therefore more persuasive than Mr. Ghaznavi's citation to Collaboration Properties v. Polycom, Inc., 224 F.R.D. 473 (N.D. Cal. 2004). Collaboration was a patent-infringement case and the interrogatories there asked about 26 different allegedly infringing products: the focus of the interrogatory was on the products, and the court there held that the interrogatory therefore had 26 discrete subparts. Collaboration, 224 F.R.D. at 475. Here, by contrast, the focus of the interrogatory (and of the jurisdictional discovery as a whole) is not on the Entities. It is on Mr. Ghaznavi and his connections with this forum; the Entities are only the (alleged) channels through which Mr. Ghaznavi made contacts with the forum. GoDaddy could have phrased the interrogatory to ask Mr. Ghaznavi to detail his relationships with entities in the forum generally; the fact that GoDaddy listed named Entities with specificity does not convert its interrogatory into 11 different interrogatories. Cf. Erfindergemeinschaft, 315 F.R.D. at 198 (interrogatory that could have asked about chemical compounds generally does not become 11 separate interrogatories merely because the party propounding interrogatory listed out the compounds, as "adding specificity in interrogatories is desirable and should not `be counted as a separate interrogatory'") (quoting Ginn v. Gemini Inc., 137 F.R.D. 320, 321-22 (D. Nev. 1991)). Mr. Ghaznavi's numerosity objection is overruled.

4. Requests Relating to the Telephone Records

Judge Hamilton indicated that phone records might be an area of dispute appropriate for jurisdictional discovery. GoDaddy, 2018 WL 1091257, at *5 (noting that the parties disagree about whether Mr. Ghaznavi "sent or directed the sending of text messages, phone calls, and advertisements to California citizens"). Mr. Ghaznavi objects on the grounds of overbreadth and burden as a conclusion, but he does not support that conclusion with an explanation of what the burden would be in responding to this request. Mr. Ghaznavi also states that it is difficult to see how GoDaddy would be able to establish personal jurisdiction through these phone records, but that is not a basis for objecting to their discovery. Mr. Ghaznavi is ordered to respond to these requests.

CONCLUSION

Going forward, if any other discovery disputes arise, the parties must comply with the dispute procedures in the undersigned's standing order (attached). The procedures in it require, among other things, that if a meet and confer by other means does not resolve the parties' dispute, lead counsel for the parties must meet and confer in person (if counsel are local) and then submit a joint letter brief with information about any unresolved disputes. The letter brief must be filed under the Civil Events category of "Motions and Related Filings > Motions — General > Discovery Letter Brief." After reviewing the joint letter brief, the court will evaluate whether future proceedings are necessary, including any further briefing or argument.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISON

STANDING ORDER FOR UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE LAUREL BEELER (Effective March 15, 2017)

Parties must comply with the procedures in the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure, the local rules, the general orders, this standing order, and the Northern District's standing order for civil cases titled "Contents of Joint Case Management Statement." These rules and a summary of electronic-filing requirements (including the procedures for emailing proposed orders to chambers) are available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov (click "Rules" or "ECF-PACER"). A failure to comply with any of the rules may be a ground for monetary sanctions, dismissal, entry of judgment, or other appropriate sanctions.

I. CALENDAR DATES AND SCHEDULING

Motions are heard each Thursday: civil motions at 9:30 a.m. and criminal motions at 10:30 a.m. Case-management conferences are every Thursday: criminal cases at 10:30 a.m. and civil cases at 11:00 a.m. Parties must notice motions under the local rules and need not reserve a hearing date in advance if the date is available on the court's calendar (click "Calendars" at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov). Depending on its schedule, the court may reset or vacate hearings. Please call courtroom deputy Elaine Kabiling at (415) 522-3140 with scheduling questions.

II. CHAMBERS COPIES

Under Civil Local Rule 5-1(b), parties must lodge a paper "Chambers" copy of any filing unless another format makes more sense (such as for spreadsheets, pictures, or exhibits that might be better lodged electronically). Paper copies must be printed on both sides and three-hole punched, and they must be the electronically filed copies with the PACER/ECF-generated header (with the case number, docket number, date, and ECF page number). Parties do not need to submit copies of certificates of service, certificates of interested entities or persons, consents or declinations to the court's jurisdiction, stipulations that do not require a court order (see Civil Local Rule 6-1), or notices of appearance or substitution of counsel. Please read Civil Local Rule 79-5 regarding the requirements for filing documents under seal and providing copies.

III. CIVIL DISCOVERY

1. Evidence Preservation. After a party has notice of this order, it must take the steps needed to preserve information relevant to the issues in this action, including suspending any document-destruction programs (including destruction programs for electronically maintained material).

2. Production of Documents In Original Form. When searching for material under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) or after a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a) request, parties (a) must search all locations — electronic and otherwise — where responsive materials might plausibly exist, and (b) to the extent feasible, produce or make available for copying and/or inspection the materials in their original form, sequence, and organization (including, for example, file folders).

3. Privilege Logs. If a party withholds material as privileged, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) and 45(d)(2)(A), it must produce a privilege log that is sufficiently detailed for the opposing party to assess whether the assertion of privilege is justified. The log must be produced as quickly as possible but no later than fourteen days after the party's disclosures or discovery responses are due unless the parties stipulate to, or the court sets, another date. Unless the parties agree to a different logging method, privilege logs must contain the following: (a) the title and description of the document, the number of pages, and the Bates-number range; (b) the subject matter or general nature of the document (without disclosing its contents); (c) the identity and position of its author; (d) the date it was communicated (or prepared, if that is the more relevant date); (e) the identity and position of all addressees and recipients of the communication; (f) the document's present location; (g) the specific basis for the assertion that the document is privileged or protected (including a brief summary of any supporting facts); and (h) the steps taken to ensure the confidentiality of the communication, including an affirmation that no unauthorized persons received the communication.

4. Expedited Procedures for Discovery Disputes. The parties may not file formal discovery motions. Instead, and as required by the federal rules and local rules, the parties must meet and confer to try to resolve their disagreements. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); Civil L. R. 37-1. Counsel may confer initially by email, letter, or telephone to try to narrow their disputes. After trying those means, lead trial counsel then must meet and confer in person to try to resolve the dispute. (If counsel are located outside of the Bay Area and cannot confer in person, lead counsel may meet and confer by telephone.) Either party may demand such a meeting with ten days' notice. If the parties cannot agree on the location, the location for meetings will alternate. The plaintiff's counsel will select the first location, defense counsel will select the second location, and so forth. If the parties do not resolve their disagreements through this procedure, lead counsel must file a joint letter brief no later than five days after lead counsels' in-person meet-and-confer. The letter brief must be filed under the Civil Events category of "Motions and Related Filings > Motions — General > Discovery Letter Brief." It may be no more than five pages (12-point font or greater, margins of no less than one inch) without leave of the court. Lead counsel for both parties must sign the letter and attest that they met and conferred in person. Each issue must be set forth in a separate section that includes (1) a statement of the unresolved issue, (2) a summary of each parties' position (with citations to supporting facts and legal authority), and (3) each party's final proposed compromise. (This process allows a side-by-side, stand-alone analysis of each disputed issue.) If the disagreement concerns specific discovery that a party has propounded, such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, or answers or objections to such discovery, the parties must reproduce the question/request and the response in full either in the letter or, if the page limits in the letter are not sufficient, in a single joint exhibit. The court then will review the letter brief and determine whether formal briefing or future proceedings are necessary. In emergencies during discovery events such as depositions, the parties may contact the court through the court's courtroom deputy pursuant to Civil Local Rule 37-1(b) but first must send a short joint email describing the nature of the dispute to lbpo@cand.uscourts.gov.

IV. CONSENT CASES

1. In cases that are assigned to Judge Beeler for all purposes, the parties must file their written consent or declination of consent to the assignment of a United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes as soon as possible. If a party files a dispositive motion (such as a motion to dismiss or a motion for remand), the moving party must file the consent or declination simultaneously with the motion, and the party opposing the motion must file the consent or declination simultaneously with the opposition.

2. The first joint case-management conference statement in a case must contain all of the information in the Northern District's standing order titled "Contents of Joint Case Management Statement." Subsequent statements for further case-management conferences must not repeat information contained in an earlier statement and instead must report only progress or changes since the last case-management conference and any new recommendations for case management.

V. SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTIONS

The parties may not file separate statements of undisputed facts. See Civil L. R. 56-2. Joint statements of undisputed facts are not required but are helpful. Any joint statement must include — for each undisputed fact — citations to admissible evidence. A joint statement generally must be filed with the opening brief, and the briefs should cite to that statement. A reasonable process for drafting a joint statement is as follows: (1) two weeks before the filing date, the moving party proposes its undisputed facts, and (2) one week later, the responding party replies and the parties meet and confer about any disagreements. For oppositions, a responding party may propose additional undisputed facts to the moving party within seven days after the motion is filed and ask for a response within two business days.

IT IS SO ORDEED.