Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOOP AI LABS INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANNA GATTI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00798-HSG (DMR)

ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY

LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 172

The court has received the parties’ August 17, 2015 joint letter regarding numerous

discovery disputes. [Docket No. 172 (Joint Letter).] Plaintiff Loop AI, Inc. did not provide full 

argument on several of the disputes. Instead, as to one of the disputes, Plaintiff requested leave to 

fully brief its position on a protective order, and attached an exhibit containing its redline of 

changes to Defendants’ proposed protective order, along with one page of annotations explaining 

certain edits, essentially granting itself additional pages of argument. (Joint Letter Ex. B.) The 

court previously ordered the parties to follow the structure and limits of its joint letter process 

because it requires the parties to focus on the most important issues, and to make appropriate 

compromises. [Docket No. 165.] The court is concerned that Plaintiff continues to disregard this

guidance. Nevertheless, in the interest of moving the case forward, the court will accept Plaintiff’s 

exhibit, and grants Defendants leave to respond to Plaintiff’s arguments in a similar format. By no 

later than August 31, 2015, Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff’s annotated arguments

regarding the proposed protective order. Defendants’ response may not exceed one page. 

Plaintiff also requested leave to fully brief its disputes with third-party Russell Reynolds 

Associates (“RRA”) regarding Plaintiff’s subpoena duces tecum to RRA. In the alternative, 

Plaintiff asks the court to incorporate by reference its motion to compel filed in the Southern 

District of New York (SDNY) (Case 15-mc-00211). (Joint Letter 6 n.17.) The court has reviewed 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 175 Filed 08/25/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

Plaintiff’s memorandum of law in support of its motion to compel filed in SDNY (Docket No. 2)

and RRA’s opposition thereto (Docket No. 12). The court finds that these filings may be helpful 

to resolving the present disputes about the RRA subpoena and will incorporate them into the joint 

letter, as Plaintiff requests. The court notes that Plaintiff’s motion to compel is somewhat general.

RRA’s opposition contains detailed, specific arguments supporting its objections to each 

document request, as well as proposed compromises. The court believes that it may benefit from a 

reply submission by Plaintiff, but only if it is similarly detailed and specific. Therefore, by August 

28, 2015, RRA shall file a statement indicating whether it has changed its positions on any of the 

objections briefed in its July 20, 2015 opposition to the motion to compel and explaining the basis 

for any such changes. Such statement shall not exceed two pages. RRA shall also lodge chambers 

copies of the documents filed at Docket No. 12 in SDNY (including all supporting evidence) by 

August 28, 2015.

By September 2, 2015, Plaintiff shall file a reply to RRA’s arguments in the July 20, 2015 

opposition and August 28, 2015 update. Plaintiff’s reply shall not exceed three pages. Plaintiff 

shall also lodge chambers copies of the documents filed at Docket Nos. 1-3 in SDNY (including 

all supporting evidence) by September 2, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2015

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 175 Filed 08/25/15 Page 2 of 2