Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03592/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03592-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

INTAGIO CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIGER OAK PUBLICATIONS, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-06-3592 PJH (EMC)

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S LETTER

OF AUGUST 29, 2007

(Docket No. 136)

Defendant Tiger Oak Publications, Inc. has filed a letter regarding a discovery dispute over

13 e-mails dated prior to the commencement of litigation by Plaintiff Intagio Corporation. Having

reviewed Tiger Oak’s letter, the Court hereby DENIES Tiger Oak’s motion to compel for the

following reasons.

First, Tiger Oak has failed to demonstrate that the parties met and conferred in good faith

regarding the discovery dispute. Tiger Oak claims that there was a meet and confer at the deposition

of Cynthia Koral on May 15, 2007, but the so-called meet and confer consisted of a brief exchange

of words between counsel. Moreover, for three months thereafter, there was no discussion of the

discovery dispute between the parties. It was not until August 27, 2007, that Tiger Oak raised the

discovery dispute again and, at that point, it did not meet and confer with Intagio; rather, it simply

said that it intended to raise the dispute with the Court via joint letter.

Second, Tiger Oak has failed to demonstrate that it was not possible to provide a joint letter

to the Court regarding the discovery dispute, as required by previous order of the Court. While

discovery may be set to close on September 4, 2007, the Civil Local Rules allow parties to raise

discovery disputes 7 days after the cut-off to make a motion to compel.

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 140 Filed 08/30/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Finally, on the merits, Tiger Oak’s position is not supported. At the May 10, 2007, hearing,

the Court’s concern was Category 2 on the privilege log, which covered “[a]ll notes, internal work

product, and undistributed draft court documents, created by attorney Steven Lewicky.” Joint letter

of 5/8/07, Ex. A (Intagio’s privilege log). Mr. Lewicky’s representations regarding prelitigation

documents concerned Category 2 only. They did not address Category 4, which included the 13 emails at issue in this discovery dispute.

This order disposes of Docket No. 136

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 140 Filed 08/30/07 Page 2 of 2