Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02472/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02472-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:0501 Copyright Infringement

---

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 

13 SEP 13 PH 12: 31 

,! " 

I, ,.' ~i~ ~h~t " 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SOPHIA & CHLOE, INC., a California 

Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

BRIGHTON COLLECTIBLES, INC., 

a California Corporation, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 12cv2472-AJB(KSC) 

ORDER DETERMINING 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

[Doc. Nos. 31, 32] 

Before the Court is the parties' dispute regarding plaintiff's request for forensic 

examinations ofcomputers used by certain defense representatives. [Doc. Nos. 31, 32] 

For the reasons outlined in greater detail below, plaintiffs request [Doc. No. 31] is 

DENIED without prejudice. 

I. BACKGROUND 

This case involves a dispute over competing lines ofMoroccan-inspired jewelry. 

[See Doc. No.1, Complaint] The action is brought by jewelry designer Sophia & Chloe 

against Brighton Collectibles, designer and manufacturer of women's accessories, 

including jewelry. Id. at 2. Plaintiff Sophia & Chloe alleges copyright infringement, 

trademark infringement, and unfair competition pursuant to the Copyright Act 17 U. S.C. 

§§ 501, et seq., the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), California Business and 

Professions Code § § 17200, et seq. and § 17500, and California common law principles. 

- 1 - 12cv2472-AJ8(KSC) 

Case 3:12-cv-02472-AJB-KSC Document 33 Filed 09/13/13 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
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 

principles. Plaintiff contends that defendant's "Toledo" line of accessories infringes 

on and unfairly competes with plaintiffs "Kiss" collection. Id. 

On August 15, 2013, plaintiff filed the Motion presently before the Court. [Doc. 

No. 31] Plaintiff seeks an Order authorizing it to conduct forensic examinations ofthe 

computers used by the two individuals identified by defendant as those responsible for 

creating and authorizing its Toledo collection. The stated purpose of the forensic 

examinations is to ascertain ifany internet history or internal communications exist or 

are otherwise recoverable that relate to the creation of the Toledo line or plaintiffs 

Kiss collection. Plaintiff argues that defendant has produced no internal 

communications regarding defendant's Toledo collection. [Doc. No. 31, p. 1] While 

plaintiff originally suspected that this lack of production was an oversight, after the 

parties met and conferred, defendant confirmed that it had searched for the sought after 

communications and found none. Id. Plaintiff proposed for the individuals identified 

by defendant who were responsible for the design and approval of the Toledo 

collection, Brighton CEO Jerry Kohl and Brighton designer Kim Cruser-Scott, each 

sign a declaration stating that no such communications exist. When defendant refused, 

plaintiff proposed forensic examinations ofthe computers used by Mr. Kohl and Ms. 

Cruser-Scott. 

On August 23, 2013, defendant filed its Oppositioni to plaintiffs Motion to 

I The Chamber Rules of the undersigned Magistrate Judge require parties to engage in 

meaningful meet and confer discussions before bringing disputes to the attention of the Court. 

Crawford Chamber Rule V.(B). The parties are expected to comply with this requirement, which is 

also mandated in the Local Rules for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofCalifornia. 

L.Civ.R.26.1a. Discovery disputes must be presented to the Court in Joint Motion format. Crawford 

Chamber Rule V.(D). The Joint Motion obligation is mandated by the rules ofthis Court and as such 

the Court will normally refuse to adjudicate discovery disputes where the parties have not submitted 

the dispute in Joint Motion format, with limited exceptions. ld.; L.Civ.R 26.1 e. "This Court considers 

a minimum of5 business days prior to the anticipated filing date ofthe joint motion to be a reasonable 

time period for a party to participate meaningfully in the preparation ofthe j oint motion." Crawford 

Chamber Rule V.(D)(4). 

It is unclear why this dispute was not filed as a Joint Motion. [Doc. No. 31-1, Exhs. J, K] Defendant 

argues that the "drafts [ofthe Joint Motion] were ever changing,"that "[Judge Crawford] does not state 

that 5 business days is the maximum time period that the opposing party should be given," and that, 

- 2- i2cv2472-AJ8(KSC) 

Case 3:12-cv-02472-AJB-KSC Document 33 Filed 09/13/13 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
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 

Compel Forensic Computer Inspection. [Doc. No. 32] Defendant objects to the proposed 

computer examinations on grounds that the requested relief is based on speculation, 

seeks information not relevant to this action, and is unreasonably intrusive. Specifically, 

defendant argues that the lack ofinternal communication regarding its own Toledo line 

is not surprising given that "Brighton designers sketch their designs with pencil on 

paper." [Doc. No. 32, p. 7] As further explained, "[the designers] do not create their 

designs digitally. They do not routinely email each other or others at Brighton about the 

creation oftheir designs." [d. Given the age ofthe internet search histories requested 

by plaintiff, defendant asserts that the "non-existence of those histories is not all that 

surprising considering their ephemeral nature." [Doc. No. 32, p. 4] Regarding its refusal 

to provide declarations on these topics, defendant argues that "(a) there is no such 

requirement under the Federal Rules, and (b) [plaintiff] had already noticed depositions 

at which the relevant [defense] representatives would give live testimony under oath on 

these same subjects anyway." [Doc. No. 32, p. 10] Lastly, defendant claims that 

plaintiff's request is untimely under both the Chamber Rules of the undersigned 

Magistrate Judge, as well as the operative Scheduling Order [Doc. No. 30] in this action. 

II. DISCUSSION 

The scope ofdiscovery under Rule 26(b) is broad: "[p ]arties may obtain discovery 

regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the claim or defense of any 

party involved in the pending action. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial 

if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence." FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b). However, a court may limit discovery of relevant 

material if it determines that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or 

duplicative, or obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less 

burdensome, or less expensive, or the burden or expense ofresponding to the proposed 

on August 8, 2013, and filed its ex parte Motion on August 15, 2013. [Doc. No. 31-1 at ~11, 

Declaration ofC. Carll] Based on these facts, it appears plaintiff provided defendant with a reasonable 

28 	 opportunity to participate. In the future, should defendant refuse to participate in the joint filing of 

disputes absent good cause, defendant risks forfeiting its positions or arguments. 

- 3 -	 12cv2472-Al8(KSC) 

Case 3:12-cv-02472-AJB-KSC Document 33 Filed 09/13/13 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
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 

discovery outweighs the likely benefit. FED.R.CN.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)-(iii). The party 

resisting discovery generally bears the burden ofshowing that the discovery requested 

is irrelevant to the issues in the case or is overly broad, unduly burdensome, 

unreasonable, or oppressive. Henderson v. Holiday CVS, L.L.c., 269 F.R.D. 682, 686 

(S.D. Fla. 2010). lfthe resisting party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the moving 

party to show the information is relevant and necessary. Id. 

The Court finds that defendant has sufficiently met its burden as the party resisting 

plaintiff's proposed discovery. Given the legitimate privacy and other interests at issue, 

absent "specific, concrete evidence of concealment or destruction of evidence," courts 

are generally cautious about granting a request for a forensic examination of an 

adversary's computer. Advante Int'l Corp. v. Mintel Learning Technology, 2006 WL 

1806151 at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 29,2006); John B. v. Goetz, 531 F.3d 448,460 (6th Cir. 

2008). While this Court acknowledges plaintiff's suspicion that it is "implausible" that 

nobody within defendant's organization sent or received a single e-mail regarding the 

design or creation ofthe Toledo collection, "mere skepticism that an opposing party has 

not produced all relevant information is not sufficient to warrant drastic electronic 

discovery measures." John B., 531 F.3d at 460 (citing McCurdy Group, LLC v. Am. 

Biomedical Group, Inc., 9 Fed. Appx. 822, 831 (10th Cir. 2001». Given plaintiff's 

ability to explore these topics through other written and oral discovery tools, the burden 

and expense of forensic examinations at this discovery stage is unwarranted.2 

Accordingly, and absent more specific, concrete evidence of concealment, destruction 

ofevidence, or failure to preserve documents and information, plaintiffis not entitled to 

access defendant's computers to confirm its suspicions. Should plaintiff obtain 

additional information through oral and written discovery to support its assertions, the 

Court will consider a renewed Motion, if supported. 

2 Through discovery, plaintiff should consider inquiring about Brighton's document retention 

policies, and what steps the company took to preserve documents in this case. 

- 4- 12cv2472-AJB(KSC) 

Case 3:12-cv-02472-AJB-KSC Document 33 Filed 09/13/13 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
1 III. CONCLUSION 

2 F or the reasons stated above, plaintiff s request to compel forensic examinations 

3 of the computers used by certain representatives of the defendant [Doc. No. 31] is 

4 DENIED without prejudice. 

5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

____,2013 

Unite States Magistrate Judge 

- 5 - 12cv2472-NB(KSC) 

Case 3:12-cv-02472-AJB-KSC Document 33 Filed 09/13/13 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5