Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04401/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04401-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 NETBLUE, INC ET AL,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-04401 SC (EDL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

COMPEL DISCOVERY;

GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL; AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

On October 24, 2006, Plaintiff Ritchie Phillips’ Motion to Compel various discovery

responses and for Evidentiary and Monetary Sanctions, and Defendant Netblue, Inc.’s Motion

to Compel Production of Documents came on shortened time for hearing. Having considered

the written submissions and arguments of counsel for Netblue, Inc., Kenneth Chan, Scott

Rewick, and Derek Pilch (“Defendants”) and counsel for Ritchie Phillips, dba R&D Computers

(“Plaintiff”), and good cause having been shown, the Court grants in part and denies in part

each motion.

I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

A. Deposition of Monica Gerber.

The Court orders that Plaintiff may reopen the deposition of Monica Gerber for up to

one additional hour.

Case 3:05-cv-04401-SC Document 138 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

B. Deposition of Peter Adams.

The Court does not need to rule with respect to the issue of the deposition of Peter

Adams because Plaintiff withdrew this issue from his motion at the hearing.

C. Production of Documents.

Defendants are ordered to supplement, if necessary, their production of documents in

response to the document request set forth in Plaintiff’s deposition notice of Defendants’

officer most knowledgeable to include responsive documents identified in Eric Denton’s

deposition transcript at or about pages 63 through 67 regarding complaints from individuals

about receiving unsolicited commercial e-mail from Netblue’s affiliates during the time period

from the inception of Netblue, Inc. until the date of the last e-mail set forth in the Complaint.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding Defendants’ production of the emails received by or sent from Monica Gerber’s Netblue, Inc. company e-mail address

regarding complaints from individuals about receiving unsolicited commercial e-mail from

Netblue’s affiliates. Plaintiff’s request for all e-mails between Monica Gerber and Netblue’s

affiliates is overbroad and the parties must meet and confer about some reasonable way to

search Ms. Gerber’s e-mail inbox for the relevant information regarding unsolicited

commercial e-mail complaints.

D. Discovery Pursuant to the Court’s August 3, 2006 Order.

i. Evidentiary and Monetary Sanctions

The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for monetary and evidentiary sanctions. 

ii. Affiliate Contact Data

The Court orders Defendants to produce Frontline Direct’s telephone number and any

missing contact information for the affiliates identified and produced by Defendants. 

iii. Affiliate Contracts

Defendants are ordered to produce the reports from DirectTrack, the third party

software used by Defendants, referred to in the deposition testimony of Monica Gerber at or

about page 94, in whatever form of report DirectTrack provides to show information about

Case 3:05-cv-04401-SC Document 138 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

affiliate contracts.

iv. Box 4

The Court does not need to rule with respect to the issue of production of “Box 4”

because Plaintiff withdrew this issue from his motion at the hearing.

v. Defendants’ “Opt-In” List

The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding Plaintiff’s request for Defendants’

“opt-in” list. Specifically, the parties are to meet and confer regarding the appointment of an

independent third party to locate any opt-in data for the intended recipients of the e-mails at

issue. Netblue shall pay the reasonable costs incurred by the appointed third party to locate the

opt-in data described in this section.

II. Defendants’ Motion to Compel

A. Production of Documents.

The Court denies Defendants’ motion to compel production of documents responsive to

Request for Production Nos. 33, 34, 35, 37, and 38. 

As to Request Nos. 33 and 34, the Requests are overbroad. Plaintiff has provided

documents sufficient to address Defendants’ standing challenges, including information

regarding whether Plaintiff is a bona fide internet service provider, and whether Plaintiff

suffered “adverse effect” as a result of Defendants’ alleged actions.

As to Request Nos. 35, 37, and 38 the Requests are overbroad. However, Plaintiff is

ordered to provide Defendants with a list of the e-mail addresses used by Plaintiff personally.

As to Request No. 36, Plaintiff is ordered to produce additional responsive documents;

otherwise, Plaintiff must submit a declaration stating that Plaintiff does not possess any

additional responsive documents other than what he has already produced to date. 

B. Supplemental Production of Documents.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer to identify a format for the production of

header information, as defined by the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. §7706, et seq. Plaintiff is

ordered to produce the header information for the e-mails at issue. Plaintiff may designate the

Case 3:05-cv-04401-SC Document 138 Filed 11/21/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\EDLALL\2005\05-4401\Order re MTC and MFS.wpd 4

information “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” pursuant to the Stipulated

Protective Order entered in this matter. 

C. Designation of Highly Confidential Documents.

The Court denies Defendants’ motion for an order requiring Plaintiff to replace the

“Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only” designation of the e-mails produced by Plaintiff

with a “Confidential” designation due to the nature of the alleged violations of the CANSPAM Act set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04401-SC Document 138 Filed 11/21/06 Page 4 of 4