Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01205/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01205-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 368
Nature of Suit: Asbestos Personal Injury - Prod.liab.
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Asbestos Litigation

---

1

Case No. 15-cv-01205-BLF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL

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

WILLIAM MOSLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GROUPON, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01205-BLF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

COMPEL

(Re: Docket No. 43)

Even among all the unnecessary discovery disputes brought to this court, this one stands 

out.

After Plaintiffs William and Frances Mosley filed this suit in state court in January 2015, 

Defendant Groupon, Inc. removed it to this court in March.

1

 During email discussions in late June 

about a joint case management statement, Plaintiffs’ counsel asked Groupon’s counsel if the latter 

“would be willing to accept electronic service.”

2 On June 29, Plaintiffs’ counsel again asked 

Groupon’s counsel if he was “okay with electronic service.”

3

 Six minutes later, Groupon’s 

counsel responded, “I am.”

4

 Plaintiffs then served Groupon their discovery requests by email later 

that day, and Groupon’s counsel acknowledged that he had received them.5 And yet, four months 

 

1

See Docket No. 1.

2 Docket No. 43-1.

3

Id.

4

Id.

5

See id.

Case 5:15-cv-01205-BLF Document 52 Filed 11/03/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 15-cv-01205-BLF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL

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

later, Groupon claims that it was never served those requests and that it never consented to 

electronic service.6 Groupon therefore contends that it no longer needs to respond to requests 

relating to claims that Judge Freeman dismissed in August.7

In its papers and in oral argument, Groupon argues that the consent was ambiguous. It 

says that the parties always intended to memorialize the terms and conditions in a more complete 

agreement. When Groupon’s counsel agreed that he was “okay with electronic service,” his 

statement was only the prelude to negotiating a full written contract. And the discovery requests 

themselves were ambiguous as well—when Groupon’s counsel received them, he thought that 

they were only courtesy copies of discovery to be served later. Groupon’s argument borders on 

the frivolous. The court has reviewed the email exchange at issue, and it is abundantly clear that 

both parties intended to—and thus did—consent to electronic service. Groupon’s counsel simply 

lost track of the requests at issue, an otherwise excusable mistake that Groupon then compounded 

by claiming it never received them.

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. Groupon must respond to the requests within 14 days. 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C), Plaintiffs are further awarded the attorneys’ fees they 

incurred in filing this motion and in meeting and conferring with Groupon about these discovery 

requests. By failing to timely respond, Groupon has admitted the matters in Plaintiffs’ requests for 

admission and has waived its objections to all of Plaintiffs’ requests. Plaintiffs also request that 

the court extend Plaintiffs’ deadline to amend their complaint, but Judge Freeman set that deadline 

in her order dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims.

8

 Plaintiffs should direct this request for relief to the 

presiding judge.

 

6

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E) (authorizing service of documents “by electronic means if the 

person consented in writing—in which event service is complete upon transmission, but is not 

effective if the serving party learns that it did not reach the person to be served”).

7

See Docket No. 37.

8

See id. at 3.

Case 5:15-cv-01205-BLF Document 52 Filed 11/03/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 15-cv-01205-BLF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL

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

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01205-BLF Document 52 Filed 11/03/15 Page 3 of 3