Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03656/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03656-6/pdf.json

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

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LUXUL TECHNOLOGY INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NECTARLUX, LLC; New York limited

liability company; JKENNEY 

CONSULTING, INC., a Florida corporation; 

and JAMES KEENEY, an individual,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:14-cv-03656-LHK (HRL)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

JOINT REPORT NO. 1

Re: Dkt. No. 73

In Discovery Dispute Joint Report # 1, plaintiff Luxul Technology, Inc. (“Luxul”) seeks an 

order compelling Nectarlux, LLC, JKeeney Consulting Inc., and James Keeney (collectively, 

“defendants”) to provide better copies of e-mails produced in response to plaintiff’s requests for 

production of documents. In response to the court’s Interim Order, the parties made additional 

submissions. Finally, a telephonic hearing was held on January 29th, and at its conclusion the 

court orally announced its tentative decision. It now formally adopts that decision.

Defendants produced its responsive e-mails electronically in PDF (Portable Document 

Format) format. This was not their native format. There was no metadata. Many attachments 

were stripped from the e-mails that had attachments. Plaintiff claimed that the production was not 

reasonably usable, and it certainly did not comply with the specific language in the document 

Case 5:14-cv-03656-LHK Document 81 Filed 02/03/16 Page 1 of 4
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

requests asking for both native format and metadata.

Defendants said they only stripped attachments that were produced elsewhere, but some 

attachments were not identified in the e-mail by a file name, so it could be anyone’s guess which 

document that attachment actually was, even if it had been produced somewhere else. Defendants 

tried to excuse the other shortcomings in their e-mail production by saying that all their e-mails 

were on a Mac computer, that their IT consultant told them that “normal” search software does not 

work on a Mac, that it would be necessary to purchase and install special software to identify and 

extract responsive e-mails, and that the resulting copies of the e-mails would be in PDF format. 

No native format. No metadata. So that’s what defendants did.

While that explanation might accurately explain the difficulty of searching for responsive 

e-mails on a Mac computer, it does not excuse defendants from not using an alternate, readily 

available, simple way to make a proper search for responsive e-mails. As plaintiff’s counsel 

pointed out to defendants long before this dispute reached the court, all of defendants’ e-mails are 

hosted by GoDaddy in the Cloud. (This is obvious because the GoDaddy logo and interface 

appears on one or more of the e-mails.)

At the hearing on this matter, defense counsel acknowledged that the e-mails were hosted 

by GoDaddy in the Cloud, but he did not know it (nor, apparently, did his IT consultant) until 

plaintiff’s counsel brought it to his attention after the PDF versions of the e-mails were produced. 

He also admitted that downloading the e-mails from the Cloud would allow production in native 

format and with metadata.

Armed with the knowledge of a better way to produce the Mac e-mails, why did not 

defendants actually do it? Defendants argued it was unnecessary, unduly time consuming, and 

prohibitively costly. Plaintiff argued much more persuasively that it was actually a very simple, 

quick procedure. Defendants offered to produce in native format and with metadata any e-mail 

that plaintiff specifically identified as being of interest. That would unfairly shift the burden of 

making a proper document production from the defendants (whose burden it is) to the plaintiff.

Accordingly, defendants shall download from the Cloud and produce electronically all 

responsive e-mails, with all attachments, in native format, with metadata. If, perchance, there are 

Case 5:14-cv-03656-LHK Document 81 Filed 02/03/16 Page 2 of 4
3

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

some e-mails not in the Cloud, defendants shall produce them, with attachments, in PDF or TIFF 

format, with metadata. The production shall be completed by February 11, 2016.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2016

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-03656-LHK Document 81 Filed 02/03/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

5:14-cv-03656-LHK Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Jamie Duitz Quient jamie.quient@procopio.com, mlf@procopio.com

John Louis Mlnarik john@mlnariklaw.com, mlnariklawecfnoticescanb@gmail.com

Kyle Geoffrey Bates kbates@schneiderwallace.com, mail@schneiderwallace.com

Melinda Mae Morton mindy.morton@procopio.com, calendaring@procopio.com, 

gail.poulos@procopio.com

Michael C McKay mmckay@schneiderwallace.com

Nina C. Decker nina@mlnariklaw.com

Robert H. Sloss robert.sloss@procopio.com, calendaring@procopio.com, 

gail.poulos@procopio.com

Todd Michael Schneider tschneider@schneiderwallace.com, efilings@schneiderwallace.com

William Wallace Winters William@mlnariklaw.com

Case 5:14-cv-03656-LHK Document 81 Filed 02/03/16 Page 4 of 4