Opinion
19-cv-01315-JSW (AGT)
07-07-2023
CELLWITCH INC., Plaintiff, v. TILE, INC., Defendant.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS
RE: DKT. NO. 153
ALEX G. TSE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On April 6, 2023, the Court ordered Tile to complete, by May 8, 2023, “its production of documents that are responsive to Cellwitch's [RFPs].” Dkt. 140.
The phrase “complete its production” was in reference to a particular production that Tile had committed to make. See Joint Statement, Dkt. 138 at 6 (“Tile is in the process of identifying and collecting documents for production, including for example source code, financial information, and other information that Tile understands to be responsive to many requests.”). The Court didn't intend for Tile to produce, by May 8, all documents responsive to Cellwitch's RFPs. Tile had objected to the scope of certain RFPs, see, e.g., dkt. 138-5, and the Court didn't rule on those objections.
The April 6 order admittedly could have been clearer, as is apparent to the Court now that it has had the benefit of more information on the state of discovery. But given the Court's intent in its April 6 order, the Court won't sanction Tile for failing to produce, by May 8, all documents responsive to Cellwitch's RFPs.
Cellwitch isn't satisfied with Tile's May 8 production. See Motion for Sanctions, Dkt. 153 at 6 (“Tile's production is woefully void of technical documents called for by Requests for Production Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 ....”). At this stage of the case, when the discovery cutoff hasn't yet passed, the best way for Cellwitch to proceed is by filing a joint statement to compel a further production of documents. If a dispute remains after the parties have met and conferred in person or by videoconference to discuss Tile's production, Cellwitch may file such a joint statement. The Court denies Cellwitch's motion for sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.