Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06637/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06637-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

1

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CARDONET, INC., 

Plaintiff,

v.

IBM CORPORATION,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-6637 RMW (PVT)

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL AND REOPEN

DISCOVERY

On February 29, 2008, Plaintiff Cardonet, Inc. filed a motion to compel and reopen

discovery. Defendant IBM Corporation opposed the motion. Having reviewed the papers 1

submitted by the parties, the court finds it appropriate to issue this order without oral argument. 

Based on the moving, opposition and reply briefs submitted,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall allow

Plaintiff to re-inspect the clone. 

Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) provides, in relevant part, that a party “must, without awaiting a

discovery request, provide to the other parties”. . . “a copy — or a description by category and

location — of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the

disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or

Case 5:06-cv-06637-RMW Document 138 Filed 04/07/08 Page 1 of 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

ORDER, page 2

defenses. Rule 26(e) requires a party who has made such a disclosure to supplement or correct its

disclosure:

“(A) in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material

respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the

additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made

known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing;

or

“(B) as ordered by the court.”

Under all the circumstances of this case, the court finds it appropriate to order IBM to

supplement its disclosure of the “clone.” IBM voluntarily disclosed the clone to Cardonet (albeit to

further its own financial interest in freeing up its more expensive server for other business purposes

rather than solely to comply with its initial disclosure obligations). Given the importance of the

evidence maintained on the clone to the present litigation, this was clearly a disclosure “of

electronically stored information, and tangible things that [IBM] has in its possession, custody, or

control and may use to support its claims or defenses,” and thus constituted a Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii)

disclosure subject to the supplementation provisions of Rule 26(e). An order requiring

supplementation at this time is warranted both because it appears work was done on the clone after

the original inspection, and because it appears there may have been a genuine misunderstanding with

regard to the scope of the parties’ agreement regarding whether Cardonet would have ongoing access

to the clone. 

Dated: 4/7/08

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-06637-RMW Document 138 Filed 04/07/08 Page 2 of 2