Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03592/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03592-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INTAGIO CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIGER OAK PUBLICATIONS, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-06-3592 PJH (EMC)

ORDER RE JOINT LETTERS OF

SEPTEMBER 13, 2007

(Docket Nos. 142-46, 148)

On September 13, 2007, the parties filed with the Court three joint letters regarding

discovery disputes. Having reviewed those letters and their accompanying submissions, the Court

hereby rules as follows.

A. Interrogatories

Intagio argues that Tiger Oak’s responses to Interrogatories Nos. 18 and 19 are incomplete. 

The Court agrees. The interrogatory asks Tiger Oak if it contends it did not receive certain

Powerpoint presentation slides to describe all evidence supporting such contention. Tiger Oak’s

responses state only that its president, CEO, and CFO did not receive the slides. It does not respond

to the full scope of the interrogatory. Accordingly, the Court orders Tiger Oak to provide a full and

complete response to each interrogatory.

Because the interrogatory responses only provide evidence in support of the claim that the

President, CEO, and CFO (and not Tiger Oak as an entity) did not receive the slides, if the denial is

broadened to include Tiger Oak, it must describe all evidence supporting that broader denial.

As to Mr. Bednar, however, the Court will not require Mr. Bednar to re-affirm the veracity of

his prior deposition. If Intagio believes that documents contradict his prior testimony, it can present

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 153 Filed 09/20/07 Page 1 of 5
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

such evidence to the finder of fact. While Intagio could have sought to redepose Mr. Bednar based

on documents produced after his deposition, it did not do so.

Finally, Intagio’s request that Tiger Oak identify its expert referred to in its interrogatory

response is moot. See Docket No. 144, Ex. 9 (Grzincich declaration).

B. Requests for Admission

At issue here is whether or not Tiger Oak should be compelled to respond to Intagio’s

Requests for Admission Nos. 26-54. The Court finds that the parties did agree to a maximum of

twenty-five requests for admission. See Docket No. 41, Ex. 1, at 4. That the agreement was

provided in a proposed joint discovery plan which was not formally signed off on by the presiding

judge is irrelevant. Tiger Oak’s objections to the requests for admission were therefore appropriate.

That being said, the parties’ stipulation does not bar Intagio from seeking relief from the

agreement. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a) (limiting interrogatories to twenty-five in number but providing

that “[l]eave to serve additional interrogatories shall be granted to the extent consistent with the

principles of Rule 26(b)(2)”). Here, the Court finds that the benefit of the additional requests for

admission outweighs any burden to Tiger Oak. As the Court noted in its order of June 20, 2007, the

requests for admission are, as a general matter, uncomplicated and straightforward. See Docket No.

114. More important, they advance the litigation by potentially limiting the issues for trial. 

Accordingly, the Court orders Tiger Oak to provide responses to the requests for admission within

twenty (20) days of the date of this order.

Tiger Oak contends that the Court should not grant the above relief because Intagio did not

make any argument in the parties’ joint letter that it should be relieved from the parties’ stipulation. 

The Court does not agree. Intagio sufficiently raised the argument by contending that the requests

should be answered because they were “sought to partially compensate for the harm to its case

preparation caused by Tiger Oak’s late document production” and because they were not unduly

burdensome. Docket No. 143. In substance and in effect, Intagio did seek to demonstrate good

cause for the additional requests for admissions. In the parties’ joint letter, Tiger Oak made little

argument in response to these substantive contentions, resting primarily on the fact that the parties

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 153 Filed 09/20/07 Page 2 of 5
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

1

 The Court further notes that Tiger Oak had at least six days between the time the joint letter

was filed and the hearing on the discovery dispute to formulate a response to Intagio’s argument that

the requests for admission were necessary and were not unduly burdensome.

3

had stipulated to only twenty-five requests for admission. Tiger Oak’s assertion, therefore, that it

has not been given notice and an opportunity to be heard is not well taken.1

 

C. Sanctions

Intagio asks that it be awarded attorney’s fees as a sanction against Tiger Oak based on (1)

Tiger Oak’s failure to provide complete responses to Interrogatories Nos. 18 and 19; (2) Tiger Oak’s

failure to respond to Requests for Admission Nos. 26-54; and (3) Tiger Oak’s failure to timely

produce electronic documents in electronic form.

The Court shall not award any sanctions with respect to the second category. As noted

above, Tiger Oak’s position concerning the stipulation regarding the requests for admission was

technically correct, and thus its opposition, though not meritorious, was substantially justified.

In addition, the Court shall not award any sanctions with respect to the third category. The

Court does disagree with Tiger Oak that Intagio never asked for documents in pst form until April

2007. Intagio’s document requests specifically stated that e-mails should be produced in their

original electronic form. See Docket No. 144, Ex. B, at 2. The Court further has reservations about

why Exhibit 33 was not produced in its original electronic form (i.e., pst rather than txt) and about

whether Tiger Oak conducted a reasonably diligent search for electronic documents in response to

the discovery request. But, even if the Court were inclined to award sanctions because of Tiger

Oak’s failure to timely produce electronic documents in electronic form, it cannot because Intagio

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 153 Filed 09/20/07 Page 3 of 5
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

 The Court acknowledges receipt of Intagio’s letter, dated September 19, 2007, in which it

claims that it erroneously stated at the hearing on the sanctions motion that it had failed to file a motion

to compel. See Docket No. 151. But this letter is not appropriate for submission. 

First, at the conclusion of the hearing on September 19, 2007, the Court took the matter under

submission. Intagio did not seek leave to file a post-argument brief. The letter is thus out of time and

procedure. Cf. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d) (once a reply brief is filed, there may be no additional

memoranda, papers, or letters without prior Court approval, except for Statement of Recent Decision

which may be filed prior to noticed hearing date).

Second, even if the Court were to accept the September 19 letter, Intagio is making an argument

that it never offered before -- i.e., that Tiger Oak failed to comply with the Court’s order of February

5, 2007. The Court also notes that the previous motion to compel filed by Intagio simply addressed the

failure of Tiger Oak to produce documents; it did not specifically raise the issue of failure to produce

electronic documents in electronic form.

4

never filed a motion to compel.2

 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4) (noting that if a motion is granted or if

discovery is provided after the motion is filed then the court shall award reasonable expenses).

However, the Court shall award sanctions with respect to the first category. As noted above,

Tiger Oak failed to provide complete responses. Moreover, the responses were obviously

incomplete. Tiger Oak unilaterally chose to narrow its responses to address whether its president,

CEO, and CFO ever received the slides whereas the interrogatories clearly asked whether Tiger Oak

had ever received the slides. Tiger Oak argues that sanctions should not be awarded because Intagio

failed to adequately meet and confer about the incompleteness of its interrogatory responses. 

However, the parties did meet and confer on September 8, 2007. See Docket No. 142. Tiger Oak

delayed until September 12, 2007, to provide supplemental responses, although it knew that Intagio

had to file any motion to compel by the next day, and it provided responses that were obviously

incomplete. When Intagio provided its portion of the joint letter explaining why the answers were

incomplete, Tiger Oak never made any response that it would further supplement the answers.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 153 Filed 09/20/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

As to what amount of sanctions are appropriate, Intagio contends that its attorney spent

twenty-four hours, at an hourly rate of $350, addressing both the interrogatories and requests for

admission. See Lewicky Decl. ¶ 24. The Court presumes that half of the time was spent on the

interrogatories alone. Hence the Court will award to Intagio, pursuant to Rule 37(a)(4), fees in the

amount of $4,200.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 142-46 and 148.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 153 Filed 09/20/07 Page 5 of 5