Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-04052/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-04052-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 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 This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports. 1

Case No. C 08-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER SUSTAINING OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY ORDER

(JFLC3)

**E-Filed 1/12/10**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

EBAY, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

DIGITAL POINT SOLUTIONS, INC.,

SHAWN HOGAN, KESSLER’S

FLYING CIRCUS, THUNDERWOOD

HOLDINGS, INC., TODD DUNNING,

DUNNING ENTERPRISES, INC., BRIAN

DUNNING, BRIANDUNNING.COM,

and DOES 1-20,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 08-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER SUSTAINING 1

OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY

ORDER

RE: Docket No. 166

Plaintiff eBay, Inc. (“eBay”) moved to compel responses to requests for production,

interrogatories, and requests for admission from all of the Defendants. In an order dated

November 19, 2009 (“Order”), Magistrate Judge Trumbull granted eBay’s motion as to

Defendant Dunning Enterprise, Inc. (“DEI”), but deferred ruling on eBay’s motion as to

Case 5:08-cv-04052-EJD Document 183 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 13
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

Case No. C 08-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER SUSTAINING OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY ORDER

(JFLC3)

Defendants Thunderwood Holdings, Inc. (“THI”), BrianDunning.com, Kessler’s Flying Circus

(“KFC”), Shawn Hogan, and Digital Point Solutions, Inc. (“DPS”) pending the receipt of updated

information regarding a pending criminal investigation involving these Defendants. eBay objects

to the Order on several grounds. For the reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that the

objections are well-taken. 

I. BACKGROUND

No party disputes Judge Trumbull’s description of the relationships between the various

parties. The Defendants include both individuals–Todd Dunning (“Todd”), Brian Dunning

(“Brian”), and Shawn Hogan (“Hogan”) (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”)–and

entities–DEI, BrianDunning.com, THI, KFC, and DPS (collectively, the “Entity Defendants”). 

As Judge Trumbull explained: 

Defendants Brain Dunning and Todd Dunning are brothers. Defendant Brian

Dunning is the founder and sole shareholder of the corporation known as

Thunderwood Holdings, Inc. Defendant Todd Dunning is an owner and shareholder

in the corporation known as Dunning Enterprise, Inc. The two corporations,

Thunderwood Holdings, Inc. and Dunning Enterprise, Inc., did business together as

Kessler’s Flying Circus.

. . .

BrianDunning.com is not a corporation but rather the name under which business

has been conducted.

(Order 2:15-20; 4:9-10.) Hogan “is the sole officer, sole shareholder and sole director for the

corporation known as Digital Point Systems, Inc.” (Id. at 5:12-13.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Where, as here, the magistrate judge’s ruling addresses a non-dispositive matter, the

district judge will modify or set aside “any portion of the magistrate judge’s order found to be

clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

III. DISCUSSION

Judge Trumbull deferred ruling on eBay’s motion to compel further discovery from THI,

BrianDunning.com, KFC, and DPS based on the following findings and conclusions: that Brian

“is the only person who can respond to discovery propounded on Thunderwood Holdings, Inc.,

Case 5:08-cv-04052-EJD Document 183 Filed 01/12/10 Page 2 of 13
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

3

Case No. C 08-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER SUSTAINING OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY ORDER

(JFLC3)

BrianDunning.com and effectively, Kessler’s Flying Circus” (Order 4:6-8); that “there does not

appear to be any other [DPS] corporate personnel [other than Hogan] who could be designated to

otherwise respond to discovery” (Order 5:24-25); that the Individual Defendants “ha[ve] been

advised by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of California that [they are] the

subject[s] of an ongoing criminal investigation involving the same allegations as those made in

the operative complaint in the above-captioned civil action” (Id. at 5;14-17); and that all three

Individual Defendants have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. 

eBay argues that this decision is both contrary to law and clearly erroneous. eBay also

argues that Judge Trumbull erred in failing to address its motion to compel the Individual

Defendants to produce responsive documents that they previously had produced to the

government.

1. Deferral of ruling on motions regarding the Entity Defendants

A. Contrary to law

Judge Trumbull acknowledged that unlike individual defendants, “[a] collective entity

such as a partnership or corporation may not claim the [Fifth Amendment] privilege.” (Order

3:17 (citing Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99, 104 (1988)).) She also recognized that “[t]he

corporation is obliged to ‘appoint an agent who could without fear of recrimination, furnish such

requested information as was available to the corporation.’” (Id. at 3:27-28 (citing United States

v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 9 (1970) (internal citation and footnote omitted)).) However, the Order

relies upon Kordel for the proposition that “where no one can answer the interrogatories

addressed to the corporation without subjecting himself to ‘real and appreciable’ risk of selfincrimination, . . . the appropriate remedy would be a protective order under Rule 30(b),

postponing civil discovery until termination of the criminal action.” Kordel, 397 U.S. at 9. This

reasoning necessarily implies that Brian and Hogan–both of whom are targets of a criminal

investigation–are the only individuals who could respond for the respective Entity Defendants

they control. 

eBay contends that the Order misapplies Kordel. It points out that “multiple cases []

Case 5:08-cv-04052-EJD Document 183 Filed 01/12/10 Page 3 of 13
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

Case No. C 08-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER SUSTAINING OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY ORDER

(JFLC3)

require a collective entity to designate an agent to respond to discovery, even if that agent does

not have first-hand knowledge of the information requested.” (Pl.’s Obj. 7:5-7.) Among the

cases cited by eBay are two cases from the Northern District of Illinois that explicitly recognize

that a corporation’s attorney may serve as an agent where all other corporate individuals are

foreclosed from doing so. See City of Chicago v. Reliable Truck Parts Co., No. 88 C 1458, 1989

WL 32923, at *3-4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 1989); Cent. States v. Carstensen Freight Lines, Inc., No.

96 C 6252, 1998 WL 413490, at *4-5 (N.D. Ill. July 17, 1998).

eBay also contends that the Order is contrary to law because the Individual Defendants are

required to produce responsive documents on behalf of the Entity Defendants even if they are the

only possible agents: “[a] custodian’s production of documents on behalf of a collective entity is

the act of the entity and, as such, does not ‘amount to testifying’ by the custodian in a way that

implicates the custodian’s Fifth Amendment privilege.” (Pl.’s Obj. 7:21-23 (citing United States

v. Blackman, 72 F.3d 1418, 1427 (9th Cir. 1995) (emphasis in original)).) eBay argues that this

principle applies even where the custodian is the sole representative of the entity. 

Next, eBay asserts that the Order is contrary to law “to the extent that it relied on

defendants’ unsupported ‘selection of documents’ theory.” (Pl.’s Obj. 8:14-15.) According to

eBay, Defendants argued before Judge Trumbull that the Individual Defendants would

incriminate themselves if they selected documents for production on their own behalf, but “the

Order appears to have applied that notion to production by the entities.” (Id. at 8:17-18.) eBay

cites the following passage from the Order: “[D]efendant Hogan is the only person who could

otherwise respond to discovery propounded on the corporation . . . . To require Mr. Hogan’s

counsel to produce responsive documents without any assistance from defendant Hogan is

untenable.” (Order 5:26-6:4.) eBay contends that this reasoning contradicts the established case

law establishing that production of documents by a corporate custodian is not testimonial. 

Moreover, eBay argues that the cases cited by Defendants do not support the “selection of

documents” theory because the cases “simply recognize the general principle that the ‘act of

production’ by individuals (on their own behalf) is testimonial and incriminating where the

Case 5:08-cv-04052-EJD Document 183 Filed 01/12/10 Page 4 of 13
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

Defendants filed responses as three separate groups: Todd and DEI (“the TD 2

Defendants”); Brian, THI, and KFC (“BD Defendants”); and Hogan and DPS (“DPS

Defendants”).

5

Case No. C 08-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER SUSTAINING OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY ORDER

(JFLC3)

government cannot independently identify and authenticate the documents at issue.” (Pl.’s Obj.

9:13-16.)

Finally, eBay objects to the Order’s reliance upon Medina v. Argent Mortgage Co., No. 05-

CV-2905 RS, 2006 WL 1305230 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2006). It points out that Medina addressed

only the appropriateness of a stay and “contained no analysis or discussion of whether a

corporation could refuse to provide discovery in an ongoing case based on the Fifth Amendment

privilege of a representative.” (Pl.’s Obj. 7 n.3.)

Although Defendants disagree with eBay’s legal analysis, they rely heavily principally 2

upon Judge Trumbull’s application of Kordel and do not attempt to distinguish the cases cited by

eBay that hold that corporate defendants in situations such as that presented here must appoint an

agent even if the agent has no first-hand knowledge of the entity’s operations. 

B. Clearly erroneous

eBay also argues that the Order was “based on several clear errors of fact and false

assumptions.” (Pl.’s Obj. 10:14-15.) First, it claims that the Order should have acknowledged

the existence of documents provided by third-party Rackspace to counsel for Brian, THI, and

BrianDunning.com. It asserts that these documents should be produced and that the Order does

not justify counsel’s withholding of them. The BD Defendants contend that the Order

specifically addressed the documents from Rackspace by finding that “eBay may move to compel

further discovery from third parties, including the co-location corporations known as Rackspace

US, Inc. and NetHere, Inc.” (Order 6:7-9.) In addition, the TD Defendants argue that they have

no access to documents held by Rackspace because they are not authorized on any account there. 

eBay claims in its reply that Defendants’ representations regarding the Rackspace discovery are

false and again asserts that the documents are in the possession of counsel for the BD Defendants.

eBay also claims that the Order fails to recognize that KFC and DPS already have provided

Case 5:08-cv-04052-EJD Document 183 Filed 01/12/10 Page 5 of 13
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

6

Case No. C 08-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER SUSTAINING OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY ORDER

(JFLC3)

substantive discovery responses, KFC in the form of responses to requests for admissions and

DPS in the form of supplemental responses to all three types of discovery. Both Defendants

provided this discovery under the signatures of their attorneys. According to eBay, the Order fails

to account for this previous production or to explain how it is “consistent with an inability to

respond without implicating the individuals’ Fifth Amendment rights.” (Pl.’s Obj. 11:21-22.) 

eBay also contends that the Order assumes incorrectly that DPS refused to provide any discovery

based upon Hogan’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege. eBay claims that DPS did not

refuse categorically to provide discovery, and that eBay’s motion as to DPS in fact was “an effort

to obtain complete responses that were not improperly [sic] limited by DPS, Inc.’s objections to

the definition of ‘DPS’ in eBay’s requests.” (Id. at 11:18-19.) 

The BD Defendants argue that the documents they provided earlier pertained to an earlier

version of the complaint that was dismissed, were unverified, were not at issue in eBay’s motion

to compel, and “were made with the express notification to eBay that Brian Dunning was not

involved in the preparation of the response or the information contained therein.” (BD Defs.’

Resp. 15:3-4.) eBay contends that none of these facts justifies withholding discovery now and

that these very facts demonstrate that KFC can provide discovery without incriminating any

Individual Defendants. 

The DPS Defendants claim that eBay’s argument regarding previous discovery is “without

merit” because the documents provided were DPS’s corporate formation documents and because

they “do not refer or relate to Plaintiff or its affiliate marketing program” but rather serve to

establish that Hogan is the “sole shareholder, officer, and director of the corporation.” (DPS

Defs.’ Resp. 10:16-17.) eBay argues that the documents nonetheless demonstrate that further

production from DPS is possible “with or without Hogan’s involvement.” (Pl.’s Reply 11:28.) 

eBay next claims that the Order treats KFC inconsistently. It argues that while Judge

Trumbull deferred ruling on the motion to compel production from KFC on the theory that Brian

was the only person who could answer for the entity, she found that Todd or Todd’s wife could

act on behalf of KFC in consenting to the release of discovery from third-party Rackspace. 

Case 5:08-cv-04052-EJD Document 183 Filed 01/12/10 Page 6 of 13
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

7

Case No. C 08-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER SUSTAINING OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY ORDER

(JFLC3)

According to eBay, “[t]hese factual contradictions cannot be squared and undermine the Order’s

conclusion that only the individuals asserting the Fifth Amendment could respond for KFC.” 

(Pl.’s Obj. 12:2-3.)

eBay asserts that the Order’s finding that “‘Brian Dunning is the only person who can

respond to discovery on’ KFC is demonstrably false.” (Id. at 12:4-5 (citing Order 4:6-8).) It

contends both that the finding is inconsistent with KFC’s previous substantive discovery

responses and that because Judge Trumbull found that Todd may act on behalf of KFC as DEI’s

agent, “Brian Dunning is equally capable of acting as the agent of THI (the other general partner

in KFC).” (Id. at 12:8-10.) Defendants offer no response to these points.

Next, eBay argues that the Order’s conclusion that Todd’s wife is capable of consenting,

on behalf of KFC, to the release of responsive documents from Rackspace should apply equally

with respect to her capacity to respond to all discovery on behalf of KFC. In response, the BD

Defendants argue that “[r]esponding to discovery is fundamentally different than having the mere

capacity to sign a waiver on behalf of KFC as a partner of KFC. There was no finding, and eBay

offered no evidence, that Todd Dunning’s wife was involved in KFC to the extent she would

have any knowledge of the information requested by eBay by it [sic] discovery requests.” (BD

Defs.’ Resp. 14:21-24.) 

Judge Trumbull granted eBay’s motion to compel further discovery from DEI because,

“[u]nlike the other corporate defendants, Todd Dunning and his wife are shareholders in” DEI

and Todd’s wife serves as the secretary for DEI so that she “has been able to respond to discovery

propounded on” DEI. (Order 4:27-28; 5:1-2.) eBay claims that the final clear error in the Order

is its failure to apply this same reasoning to the other Entity Defendants where “[t]here has been

no showing that Mrs. Dunning–despite being a shareholder of DEI–has any more knowledge

regarding DEI’s business than do any of the defendants’ attorneys” and where “Todd Dunning

and DEI have emphasized Mrs. Dunning’s limited knowledge.” (Pl.’s Obj. 12:22-26.) “If Mrs.

Dunning can select responsive documents on DEI’s behalf without assistance from the individual

defendants, any one of the defendants’ attorneys is certainly capable of doing so for the other

Case 5:08-cv-04052-EJD Document 183 Filed 01/12/10 Page 7 of 13
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

8

Case No. C 08-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER SUSTAINING OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY ORDER

(JFLC3)

entities, as demonstrated by DPS, Inc.’s previous production of documents.” (Id. at 12:28-13:3.)

C. Analysis

Recognizing that Fifth Amendment issues in civil cases inherently are difficult, this Court

respectfully declines, for several reasons, to adopt Judge Trumbull’s decision to defer ruling on

eBay’s motion to compel further discovery from the KFC, THI, BrianDunning.com, and DPS

Defendants. First, and most importantly, the Order overreads Kordel. The relevant language from

that case is as follows:

The respondents press upon us the situation where no one can answer the

interrogatories addressed to the corporation without subjecting himself to a ‘real and

appreciable’ risk of self-incrimination. For present purposes we may assume that in

such a case the appropriate remedy would be a protective order under Rule 30(b),

postponing civil discovery until termination of the criminal action. But we need not

decide this troublesome question. For the record before us makes clear that even

though the respondents had the burden of showing that the Government’s

interrogatories were improper, they never even asserted, let alone demonstrated, that

there was no authorized person who could answer the interrogatories without the

possibility of compulsory self-incrimination.

Kordel, 397 U.S. at 8-9 (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted). Because it is clear that Kordel did

not decide the “troublesome question” the respondents “press[ed] upon” it, it does not establish

the principle for which the Order cites it. None of the other cases cited by Defendants or in the

Order are on point. 

Rather, the case law is consistent with Kordel’s recognition, to which the Order itself

refers, that a corporation is required to “appoint an agent who could, without fear of selfincrimination, furnish such requested information as was available to the corporation.” Id. at 8

(footnote omitted). To the extent that the Order holds that corporations or other collective

entities need not meet this requirement when they are comprised of or controlled by a single

individual, this Court concludes that the Order is contrary to law. 

Defendants’ argument that discovery may not be compelled because there are no

individuals with sufficient knowledge to respond on behalf of the entities is unavailing. As

several courts have recognized, 

[t]he Federal Rules do not contemplate that the corporate officer or employee

responding to the interrogatories have first-hand personal knowledge of the facts

Case 5:08-cv-04052-EJD Document 183 Filed 01/12/10 Page 8 of 13
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

9

Case No. C 08-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER SUSTAINING OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY ORDER

(JFLC3)

reflected in the answers. . . . The Federal Rules simply require that the corporation

select an agent who can “gather and obtain from books, records, other officers or

employees, or other sources, the information necessary to answer the interrogatories

. . .” 

Cent. States, 1998 WL 413490 at *4 (citation omitted); see also Reliable Truck Parts, 1989 WL

32923 at *3 (“The appointed agent need not have ‘first-hand personal knowledge’ of the facts

reflected in the answers.”). As eBay argues, the agent can be the Entity Defendants’ counsel,

even, as is the case here, where the same counsel represents both the entities and the individuals. 

The court in Reliable Truck Parts faced this exact situation and concluded that:

The individual defendants, by choosing to maintain the same counsel as the

corporation, have themselves created the situation they call “absurd”–that the lawyer

as agent for the corporation would be answering interrogatories and producing

documents based upon information provided by the individual defendants. Suffice

it to say that the choice of counsel shouldn’t be a weapon to frustrate the pleading or

discovery processes:

Defense counsel urge, however, that they face a conflict between

representing the corporate defendants and their “duty to keep

employees informed of their right to refuse to answer.” The short

answer to that contention is that corporate counsel should not

represent individual employees if there is any conflict, as

innumerable cases have held. 

In Re Folding Carton Antitrust Litigation, 76 F.R.D. [417, at] 419 [(D.C. Ill. 1977)].

Reliable Truck Parts, 1989 WL 32923 at *4; see also 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Federal

Practice and Procedure at 276 (“In any event the case [in which no one can answer

interrogatories on behalf of a corporation without subjecting himself or herself to a risk of selfincrimination] is unlikely ever to arise since Rule 33(a) allows any agent of the corporation,

even its attorney, to answer interrogatories on behalf of a corporation.” (emphasis added)).

The record in this case supports the conclusion that discovery from these Entity

Defendants need not involve infringement upon the Individual Defendants’ Fifth Amendment

rights against self-incrimination. For example, there is no reason that Todd’s wife cannot

respond to discovery propounded on KFC when she is able to do so for DEI, an entity as to which

her knowledge is equally limited. In addition, the fact that KFC and DPS already have provided

substantive discovery–and that KFC has done so explicitly without Brian’s assistance–

Case 5:08-cv-04052-EJD Document 183 Filed 01/12/10 Page 9 of 13
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

10

Case No. C 08-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER SUSTAINING OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY ORDER

(JFLC3)

demonstrates not only that they can continue to do so but also that the other Entity Defendants

can do so as well.

2. Failure to address motions regarding the Individual Defendants

eBay’s motions to compel were not limited to discovery from the Entity Defendants but

also sought to compel production from the Individual Defendants of documents previously

provided to the government. eBay argues that the Order’s failure to address this request at all

contravenes controlling authority that this material must be produced. “Because eBay’s motion to

compel production by the individuals only of responsive documents already obtained from them

by the government–i.e., documents whose existence and location were a foregone conclusion to

the government–the production would not further incriminate defendants.” (Pl.’s Obj. 5:1-4.) 

The TD Defendants do not address the Order’s alleged failure to address the issue, but

argue that the government has not obtained any documents from Todd and that he cannot retrieve

any documents the government has obtained from Brian. The BD Defendants contend that Judge

Trumbull did not ignore the issue and point to the briefing and length of oral argument as proof of

this fact. In attempting to explain the Order’s treatment of this aspect of eBay’s motion, the BD

Defendants argue that:

Judge Trumbull either (1) concluded that the act of producing the documents

requested by eBay would be testimonial and, as such, violative of Mr. Dunning [sic]

Fifth Amendment rights, or (2) . . . a stay of this action (or at least of discovery) is

required pending resolution of the criminal proceeding against Mr. Dunning. Either

way, Judge Trumbull got it right.

(BD Defs.’ Resp. 4:22-27.) As eBay correctly argues in its reply, however, “the Order makes no

mention of the first possible ‘conclusion’ and . . . the latter ‘conclusion’ was not before Judge

Trumbull.” (Pl.’s Reply 7:8-9.)

The BD Defendants also contend that Brian’s production of any documents is testimonial

and would be testimonial here because it would provide information regarding “the scope and

extent of [Brian’s] relationship to the documents,” which are not a “foregone conclusion” of the

government’s seizure of the documents. eBay argues, however, that, while producing documents

can be testimonial, it is not necessarily testimonial in all situations. eBay also argues that there is

Case 5:08-cv-04052-EJD Document 183 Filed 01/12/10 Page 10 of 13
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

11

Case No. C 08-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER SUSTAINING OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY ORDER

(JFLC3)

no case law to support the BD Defendants’ argument that the “foregone conclusion” analysis

requires that the government know of an individual’s relationship to certain documents in

addition to knowing of the documents’ existence and location. 

As another possible justification for the denial of eBay’s motion to compel production of

documents already in government possession, the BD Defendants contend that eBay’s requests

infer the existence of the alleged “cookie stuffing” scheme such that Brian’s production in

response to the requests “would necessarily be admitting to incriminating facts such as his receipt

of money based on the manipulation of eBay’s Affiliate Program, his knowledge of technology

and techniques to manipulate eBay’s Affiliate Program, and his knowledge of software used to

erase electronic records and information.” (BD Defs.’ Resp. 8:5-8.) eBay, however, notes that

the production requested “would provide no information regarding which documents related to

which of eBay’s requests and, contrary to defendants’ arguments, not all of eBay’s requests are

even arguably incriminating.” (Pl.’s Reply 7:17-19.)

Finally, the BD Defendants claim that they do not have access to the documents seized by

the government and that the government has refused to return them. Moreover, they contend that

any documents held by Rackspace can and should be retrieved from Rackspace with the consent

of Todd or his wife and that “Brian Dunning has no obligation as to the Rackspace documents.” 

(BD Defs.’ Resp. 8:24.)

The DPS Defendants make similar arguments. In addition, they argue that eBay “ignores

the fact that each particular document request requires an affirmative, corresponding response”

and that “any indication that responsive documents exist would result in a tacit admission based

on the scope of the request (i.e. that materials were used for a particular purpose, such as to

‘manipulate’ or ‘interact’ with Plaintiff’s affiliate marketing program).” (DPS Defs.’ Resp.

14:17-20 (emphasis in original).) eBay contends that the DPS Defendants could accompany each

document they produce in the future with the same statement that they did when producing

documents on behalf of DPS: “Defendant agrees to produce all responsive documents within its

possession, custody or control” and that this statement would not implicate Hogan’s Fifth

Case 5:08-cv-04052-EJD Document 183 Filed 01/12/10 Page 11 of 13
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

 eBay also argued that Judge Trumbull’s assumption that document discovery would not 3

advance the litigation was clearly erroneous. Because the Court sustains its objections on other

grounds, it need not reach this issue. 

In addition, as eBay argues in its reply, the TD Defendants’ response primarily raises their

own objections to the Order. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the TD

Defendants had fourteen days to file their objections. Because they failed to do so, the Court will

not consider them. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(a) (“A party may not assign as error a defect in the order

not timely objected to.”).

12

Case No. C 08-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER SUSTAINING OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY ORDER

(JFLC3)

Amendment rights. 

This Court concludes that Judge Trumbull should have addressed the merits of eBay’s

motion as to the Individual Defendants. As to the substance of the motions, the Court concludes

that Defendants must produce the documents already in the government’s possession to the extent

that such production is physically possible. While the Fifth Amendment prohibits compelling

acts that are testimonial and incriminating, Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Rodrigues, 717 F.

Supp. 1424, 1425 (N.D. Cal. 1998), Defendants cannot incriminate themselves merely by turning

over information already in the hands of the government agents investigating them. Henry v.

Sneiders, 490 F.2d 315 (9th Cir. 1974) (rejecting a claim of Fifth Amendment protection of

defendant’s records because “even if the records were incriminating, their disclosure in the civil

case would not have tended to incriminate the defendant. Any incriminating information was

already in the hands of the prosecuting authorities.”). To the extent Defendants believe that

selecting the documents corresponding to a given specific discovery request would itself be an act

protected by the Fifth Amendment, eBay has indicated that it is willing to accept the documents

“en masse,” (Pl.’s Reply 10 n.4 (citing 11/13/09 Hearing Tr. at 53:16-17)). 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, eBay’s objections will be SUSTAINED. Accordingly, the 3

Court hereby modifies the Order as follows: 

1. eBay’s motions to compel production, interrogatories, and requests for admissions

from KFC, THI, BrianDunning.com, and DPS are granted; and

//

Case 5:08-cv-04052-EJD Document 183 Filed 01/12/10 Page 12 of 13
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

Case No. C 08-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER SUSTAINING OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY ORDER

(JFLC3)

2. eBay’s motions to compel all Defendants to produce all responsive documents

previously produced to the government is granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 1/12/10 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:08-cv-04052-EJD Document 183 Filed 01/12/10 Page 13 of 13