Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01129/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01129-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:53(b) - Prelim &amp; Perm Inj Relief &amp; other Equitable Relief

---

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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIRECTV, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01129-HSG (MEJ)

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 203

Pending before the Court is a joint discovery letter in which the Federal Trade Commission 

(“FTC”) argues Defendants DIRECTV and DIRECTV, LLC (collectively, “DIRECTV”) failed to 

preserve (1) an interactive website that one of DIRECTV’s experts, Jerry Wind, relied upon to 

create his expert report (the “Wind Report”), and (2) analytics data for DIRECTV’s website. See

Jt. Ltr. at 1-3, Dkt. No. 203. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)(1), the FTC seeks 

sanctions or alternatively an order excluding the Wind Report and the underlying survey analytics 

evidence on the ground that DIRECTV failed to preserve relevant evidence.1 Id. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) addresses a party’s failure to preserve electronically 

stored information (“ESI”). It provides in relevant part:

If [ESI] that should have been preserved in the anticipation or 

conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable 

steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through 

additional discovery, the court: (1) upon finding prejudice to another 

party from loss of the information, may order measures no greater 

than necessary to cure the prejudice . . . .

 

1

The FTC does not appear to contend DIRECTV “acted with the intent to deprive” the FTC of the 

information’s use in litigation; consequently, the Court does not address it here. See Jt. Ltr. at 1 

(referring only to Rule 37(e)(1)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2) (providing remedies upon a 

finding that the party that failed to preserve the ESI did so “with the intent to deprive another party 

of the information’s use in litigation”).

Case 4:15-cv-01129-HSG Document 205 Filed 11/02/16 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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) (emphasis added). 

The joint discovery letter does not provide information sufficient to allow the undersigned 

to decide whether sanctions are appropriate at this point. The Court accordingly temporarily

denies the FTC’s request for sanctions and grants its alternative request for leave to file a fifteenpage motion. Jt. Ltr. at 1. Any such motion must be filed by November 16, 2016 and must 

address: (1) DIRECTV’s disclosures to the FTC about what website data DIRECTV was or was 

not preserving, and the FTC’s responses thereto; (2) what “reasonable steps” the FTC contends 

DIRECTV should have taken to preserve the lost ESI; (3) why the FTC believes this ESI cannot 

be, or has not been, restored or replaced through additional discovery; (4) the prejudice caused by 

the loss of the ESI; and (5) why excluding the Wind Report is the most appropriate remedial 

measure under these circumstances. DIRECTV may file an Opposition by November 30, 2016, 

not to exceed 15 pages. The FTC’s Reply shall not exceed five pages and shall be due by 

December 7, 2016. The Court will schedule a hearing on the motion if it deems it necessary. In 

light of the Thanksgiving holiday, the Court will also consider a stipulation by the parties for a 

different, mutually-agreeable briefing schedule. 

Finally, the Court notes the parties’ tendency to provide extensive documentary evidence 

in connection with their filings and to request much of this evidence be sealed pursuant to Civil 

Local Rule 79-5. The Court accordingly encourages the parties to meet and confer in connection 

with any sealing requests and also to determine whether certain facts can be stipulated to or 

supported by declaration rather than through other documentary evidence. If disputes arise 

regarding evidentiary support for the declarations, the Court can order further production as 

necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-01129-HSG Document 205 Filed 11/02/16 Page 2 of 2