Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

LOOP AI LABS INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANNA GATTI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00798-HSG (DMR)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

The parties have filed confusing discovery submissions. For example, the parties filed ex 

parte letter briefs regarding Plaintiff’s subpoena to third party Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 

(“Orrick”). [Docket Nos. 112, 114.] The court ordered Defendants to address the dispute by filing

a regularly noticed motion to quash and/or motion for a protective order. [Docket No. 117.] 

Defendants have not yet done so, but in the meantime, Plaintiff moved for an order to show cause 

why a civil contempt citation should not issue against Orrick for failing to respond to the 

subpoena. [Docket No. 124.] Neither party has explained whether these motions cover the same 

issue, and if so, why the parties failed to follow the court’s instruction on how to present the 

dispute for court decision. 

As a further example, on July 13, 2015, Defendants filed an ex parte letter brief regarding a 

third party subpoena which appears to command compliance in New York, even though Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d) provides that “the court for the district where compliance is 

required” may quash or modify a subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3). [Docket No. 128.] In its 

own ex parte response, Plaintiff represents that it filed a motion to compel regarding the same 

subpoena in U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. [Docket No. 133.] Therefore, 

each party has raised the identical dispute, but in two different fora.

These examples, coupled with the parties’ seeming inability to file joint letters, heightened

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 136 Filed 07/17/15 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

the court’s concern about the quality of the parties’ “meet and confer” efforts. For these reasons, 

the court scheduled a discovery management conference to address how, when, and where the 

outstanding discovery disputes will be resolved. The court’s July 15, 2015 order stated that the 

hearing would be conducted by telephone. However, Plaintiff’s counsel represents that she plans 

to travel to the Bay Area to appear in person for the hearing. [Docket No. 133 1 n.2.] Since 

defense counsel is located in the Bay Area, personal appearance for all parties would not be

burdensome, and will provide the opportunity for counsel to meet and confer in person under court 

supervision. Therefore, the court orders lead counsel to personally appear on July 23, 2015 at 

2:30 p.m. Counsel shall clear their calendars for the afternoon.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2015

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 136 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 2