Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01451/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01451-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRAIGSLIST, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEALERCMO, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-01451-VC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL

DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Re: Dkt. No. 31

The additional information and clarification that craigslist seeks is clearly discoverable, 

so it's not clear why DealerCMO won't just make things easier for everyone by supplementing its 

responses to provide the information. However, the interrogatories are poorly drafted, and 

there's plenty of time for craigslist to ask follow-up questions (hopefully more clearly) through 

another set of interrogatories. Accordingly, the motion to compel is denied. DealerCMO is on 

notice that if it does not respond reasonably and thoroughly to the next set of interrogatories, it 

will be required to pay costs and fees to craigslist pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2016

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01451-VC Document 34 Filed 09/14/16 Page 1 of 1