Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05822/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05822-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

EONLINE GLOBAL, INC, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-05822-EJD (SVK)

ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY 

LETTER BRIEF RE PLAINTIFFS' 

RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 

AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Re: Dkt. No. 59

Before the Court is the parties’ joint letter brief requesting that the Court compel Plaintiffs 

to provide further responses to two interrogatories (Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 12) and three 

requests for production (RFP Nos. 6, 9, and 13). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court 

deems this matter suitable for determination without oral argument. Based on consideration of the 

parties’ submission, the case file, and relevant law, the Court ORDERS as follows:

Interrogatory No. 11: Plaintiffs’ amended response is sufficient, and Google’s request 

for further response is DENIED. Depositions are the most appropriate way for Google to obtain 

the additional information it seeks. 

Interrogatory No. 12: The interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome insofar 

as it seeks information about “each COMMUNICATION.” Google is entitled to as much detail as 

is available on the two specifically identified conversations, and Plaintiffs will be limited at trial to 

whatever evidence of these conversations they provide to Google in discovery. Plaintiffs’ 

amended response is sufficient, particularly in light of Plaintiffs’ confirmation in the joint letter 

brief that they do not know the identity of the Google employees who participated in these 

conversations. Depositions are the most appropriate way for Google to further explore the details 

of these conversations. 

RFP No. 6: The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the information sought is not relevant, 

and therefore Google’s request for further response is DENIED.

Case 5:16-cv-05822-EJD Document 60 Filed 07/06/18 Page 1 of 2
2

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

RFP No. 9: Plaintiffs propose a compromise production of additional information and 

claim that efforts to produce that information are underway. Plaintiffs must complete that 

additional production by July 11, 2018. If following review of Plaintiff’s supplemental 

production Google believes that the production is inadequate, it may renew its motion on this issue 

no later than July 18, 2018.

RFP No. 13: The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the information sought is not relevant, 

particularly in light of the additional information they intend to produce in response to RFP No. 9, 

and therefore Google’s request for further response is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2018

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-05822-EJD Document 60 Filed 07/06/18 Page 2 of 2