Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798-105/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 DISCOVERY SANCTIONS 

AS TO DEFENDANTS GATTI AND 

IQSYSTEM, LLC

Re: Dkt. Nos. 648, 696

On May 6, 2016, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff 

Loop AI Labs Inc.’s motions to compel further discovery from Defendants Anna Gatti and 

IQSystem, LLC (“IQS LLC”). [Docket No. 648.] In the order, the court concluded that Gatti and 

IQS LLC’s objections to Plaintiff’s discovery were not substantially justified and noted, 

“sanctions appear warranted pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(ii).” Id. at 7. The court ordered Plaintiff to 

elect between two options, should the court ultimately decide to impose sanctions—either 1) 

Gatti’s appearance for an additional seven hours of deposition or 2) Gatti and IQS LLC’s payment 

of the reasonable attorneys’ fees Plaintiff incurred in moving to compel. Id. at 7-8. The court 

ordered Plaintiff to “file a letter simply electing option (1) or (2), and nothing more” by May 20, 

2015, and set a deadline for Gatti and IQS LLC’s response. Id. at 8. 

Plaintiff did not comply with the court’s order. Instead, on May 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a 

letter to the court in which it sought permission to serve “certain [unidentified] Subpoenas that are 

material to the claims in this case, in lieu of redeposing Defendant Gatti or obtaining a fee award.” 

[Docket No. 696.] The court chose two potential sanctions which were tailored to the conduct at 

issue, and allowed Plaintiff to select between them. Plaintiff did not do so, and in fact, failed to 

comply with the court’s order. The court therefore declines to impose Rule 37(a)(5)(ii) sanctions 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 776 Filed 07/04/16 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

against Gatti and/or IQS LLC for the discovery conduct at issue in the May 6, 2016 order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 4, 2016

______________________________________

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 776 Filed 07/04/16 Page 2 of 2