Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05914/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05914-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PENTALPHA MACAU COMMERCIAL

OFFSHORE LIMITED,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DAMODER REDDY,

Defendant. /

No. C-03-05914 MMC (EDL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

DOCUMENTS, FOR PRECLUSION

SANCTIONS, AND FOR MONETARY

SANCTIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

This unopposed Motion to Compel Documents, For Preclusion Sanctions and for Monetary

Sanctions (“Motion to Compel”), which the Court took under submission without a hearing, is the

fourth in a series that the parties have filed in this action. The Court therefore is familiar with the

underlying allegations and contentions of the parties and will not repeat them here. For the reasons

stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel documents responsive to Requests

for Documents Numbers 22, 23, and 24, GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for preclusion sanctions, and

GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s motion for monetary sanctions against Defendant Reddy.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Requests for Production of Documents.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Damoder Reddy converted intellectual property belonging to

Pentalpha. See First Amended Complaint ¶¶45-47. Pentalpha further contends that Neulight

Corporation, a company founded by Defendant Reddy after his departure from Opsys US, “appears

to be using similar technology to that formerly belonging to Opsys US.” Motion to Compel at 6;

Case 3:03-cv-05914-MMC Document 159 Filed 10/27/05 Page 1 of 4
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

Declaration of Philip Stillman in support of Pentalpha’s Motion for Discovery Sanctions (“Stillman

Decl.”) ¶10. To prove these allegations, Plaintiff requested a number of documents, including

documents evidencing, referring to or reflecting any patent, trademark or copyright applications

submitted to any organization by Reddy or on his behalf (Document Request No. 22); corporate

records of Neulight Corporation (Document Request No. 23); and documents reflecting all

intellectual property utilized by Neulight Corporation (Document Request No. 24). These

documents are relevant. Indeed, Reddy did not object to producing them on relevance grounds, but

rather on the grounds that the documents contain trade secrets and proprietary information. See

Stillman Decl., Ex. 1 at 6. These concerns can be addressed by a protective order. The Court

accordingly overrules Reddy’s objections and orders him to produce all documents responsive to

Requests for Production Numbers 22, 23, and 24 within fourteen days of this Order. 

To protect any trade secrets or proprietary information, the Court orders that the documents

produced pursuant to this Order will be used solely for purposes of this litigation, shall be kept

confidential insofar as they contain protectible trade secrets or confidential information under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(7). Should Reddy not have any documents to produce, he

shall instead file a declaration setting forth in detail the efforts he made to locate and produce

responsive documents, and certifying that he does not have any such documents in his possession,

custody or control.

B. Evidence Preclusion Sanctions.

On June 24, 2005, the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney approved a stipulation between the

parties regarding discovery. See Docket No. 117 (Order Approving Stipulation re Further Discovery

Responses). In that stipulation, Reddy agreed to produce all documents responsive to Pentalpha’s

first set of document requests, and “at a minimum . . . produce all documents supporting his claims

against Pentalpha . . . and all documents evidencing his damages, including emotional distress.” Id.

at 3. According to Pentalpha, “Reddy failed to produce any documents responsive to even these

specific issues.” Motion to Compel at 7. Reddy failed to oppose the Motion to Compel, therefore

the Court accepts Pentalpha’s representation as to Reddy’s non-compliance. 

Pentalpha earlier asked the Court to order evidence preclusion sanctions because Reddy had

Case 3:03-cv-05914-MMC Document 159 Filed 10/27/05 Page 2 of 4
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

 As Pentalpha notes, “[i]t is unclear what culpability Mr. Reddy has versus his attorney.”

Motion to Compel at 10, n.10. The Court declines to impose joint and several liability against Mr.

Hilton.

3

failed to provide further responses to interrogatories in violation of Judge Chesney’s June 24, 2005

Order. See Docket No. 118 (Motion for Discovery Sanctions). The Court recommended that Reddy

be precluded from introducing any evidence not contained in his initial disclosures, his initial or his

supplemental interrogatory responses. See Docket No. 138 (September 8, 2005 report and

recommendation re issue preclusion sanctions). The same reasoning applies here, and the Court

incorporates herein by reference its September 8, 2005 Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to

Rule 37(b), 37(c), and its inherent powers, the Court grants Pentalpha’s request for evidence

preclusion sanctions. Reddy shall not introduce into evidence, whether to support or oppose a

motion, or at trial, any document not produced prior to this Order.

C. Monetary Sanctions.

Reddy did not oppose Pentalpha’s Motion to Compel, but neither did he file a statement of

non-opposition, nor did he agree to produce the documents requested. Instead, he once again forced

Pentalpha – and the Court – to expend resources to resolve discovery disputes that should have been

resolved through a meet and confer with opposing counsel. Because Reddy’s position was not

substantially justified, and finding that no other reasons make an award of monetary sanctions

unjust, the Court grants Pentalpha’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant Reddy to the

extent that Pentalpha’s fees specifically relate to the present motion, not to earlier document review

or meet and confer efforts.1

 Based on the declaration submitted by Mr. Stillman, the Court grants

Pentalpha

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:03-cv-05914-MMC Document 159 Filed 10/27/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

fees in the amount of $4,387.50 (for 11.7 hours of work relating to drafting and filing the Motion to

Compel), to be paid within thirty days of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2005 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:03-cv-05914-MMC Document 159 Filed 10/27/05 Page 4 of 4