Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01055/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01055-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Xcentric Ventures, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Karsen, Ltd., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-01055-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's motion to compel (doc. 39), defendant Eugene

Selihov's response (doc. 42), and plaintiff's reply (doc. 43). Underlying this discovery

dispute is a battle between consumer complaint websites. Plaintiff owns

www.ripoffreport.com while defendant Selihov owns www.scaminformer.com. Plaintiff

asserts copyright and trademark claims against defendant, alleging that he has copied

protected materials from plaintiff's website onto his own website. 

Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., a party "may obtain discovery regarding

any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Relevance "has

been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead

to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case." Oppenheimer

Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351, 98 S. Ct. 2380, 2389 (1978). 

Plaintiff's first request for production originally sought "a full and complete copy of

the entire contents of the website www.scaminformer.com including all source code, posts,

Case 2:11-cv-01055-FJM Document 47 Filed 07/23/12 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

- 2 -

author information, server logs, etc." Plaintiff later narrowed its request to records reflecting

any contact information defendant has for the authors of specific pages on

www.scaminformer.com and information relating to the posting date of specific pages. In

defendant's response, he objects to plaintiff's original request for production but does not

object to or even mention plaintiff's later, narrower request. Defendant has shown no reason

why the information requested would be irrelevant or impose an undue burden on him. The

information sought is highly relevant to plaintiff's claim that defendant copied material from

its website. 

Plaintiff narrowed its fourth request for production and defendant agrees to respond

to the revised request. Plaintiff's motion to compel a response to its fourth request for

production is therefore moot.

The parties are reminded that the court's Rule 16 scheduling order limits motions to

compel, responses, and replies to two pages each. 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING in part and DENYING in part plaintiff's motion to

compel. (Doc. 39). Defendant is ordered to comply with plaintiff's narrowed first request

for production. Defendant has agreed to comply with plaintiff's fourth request for production

and therefore the motion to compel on this issue is denied as moot.

DATED this 23rd day of July, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01055-FJM Document 47 Filed 07/23/12 Page 2 of 2