Opinion
22-cv-01708-VC (AGT)
02-23-2023
CALM RADIO CORP., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CALM.COM, INC., Defendant.
DISCOVERY ORDER
RE: DKT. NO. 49
ALEX G. TSE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
In response to plaintiffs' RFP 37, defendant must produce copies of the 6,406 customer communications labeled as “negative.” Plaintiffs have articulated how these communications are relevant. See Dkt. 49 at 1 (“Complaints regarding the quality of Defendant's goods and services bear directly on the harm Plaintiff suffers as a result of confusion created by Defendant's infringing use of Plaintiff's marks.”). And defendant's burden argument isn't persuasive. The number of “negative” communications isn't overwhelming, and defendant need not spend time redacting personally identifiable information (PII) from the communications because the parties' stipulated protective order will safeguard PII from public disclosure. Defendant may redact PII, but defendant hasn't identified legal grounds for why it must. If defendant wants to take the extra time to redact PII, defendant may do so, but that extra time doesn't factor into the Court's analysis of burden. Defendant must comply with this order and produce the records at issue by March 9, 2023.
IT IS SO ORDERED.