Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-mc-80102/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-mc-80102-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

JEREMY BAUMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

V THEATER GROUP, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-mc-80102-JSC 

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE TO TWILIO, INC. AND 

DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 3, 9

Now pending before the Court are a series of discovery letter briefs which follow

Plaintiffs’ service of a subpoena on non-party Twilio, Inc. (“Twilio”) in this District. Having 

considered the parties’ briefs and having had the benefit of oral argument on May 19, 2015, the 

Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further production of documents from Twilio 

without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

This matter first came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order to Show 

Cause Why Twilio Should Not Be Held in Contempt following its alleged non-compliance with a 

subpoena issued in this District which relates to proceedings in the United States District Court for 

the District of Nevada. See Bauman v. V. Theater Group, LLC, et al., No. 14-1125 RBF-PAL (D. 

Nev.); Razilou v. V. Theater Group, LLC, et al., No. 14-1160 RBF-PAL (D. Nev.). Plaintiffs and 

non-party Twilio appeared for a hearing on an Order to Show Cause on April 16, 2015 and the 

parties were ordered to meet and confer regarding the subpoena. Although it initially appeared 

that the parties had reached a compromise through their meet and confer, a discovery dispute arose 

regarding Twilio’s production of documents and the parties filed a Joint Discovery Letter Brief. 

(Dkt. No. 10.) 

Case 3:15-mc-80102-JSC Document 25 Filed 05/21/15 Page 1 of 3
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 day before the scheduled hearing on this letter brief Defendants in the underlying 

action filed a notice of appearance and a letter brief asserting that the discovery Plaintiffs seek 

exceeds the scope of the pre-certification discovery authorized by the Nevada District Court, and 

even if this were not the case, the information sought is likely equally available from Defendants. 

(Dkt. No. 16.) The Court thereafter continued the hearing and ordered Defendants to file a 

supplementary statement confirming whether they in fact have access to the information Plaintiffs 

seek, which Defendants did. (Dkt. Nos. 18 & 22.) In the interim, Plaintiffs filed a separate 

“Counter Discovery Letter Brief” arguing that Defendants are judicially estopped from belatedly 

objecting to the discovery sought in the Twilio subpoena. (Dkt. No. 19.) 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs dispute the adequacy of Twilio’s production with respect to two categories of 

documents: (1) all transmittal records from Defendants’ accounts, and (2) Defendants’ account 

profile information. Twilio produced some information regarding each category, but Plaintiffs 

contend that the production omits certain critical information. 

First, with respect to the transmission records, Twilio produced records of each calling 

telephone number, each number called, and the date and time of each transmittal. Plaintiffs also 

seek the contents of the text messages, information regarding whether the message was sent 

through a cell phone carrier, and information regarding whether the message was delivered 

successfully. Twilio contends that Defendants can access at least some of this information by 

logging into their Twilio accounts. Although Defendants had previously represented that they 

were unable to obtain this information, it now appears that they are able to produce at least the 

contents of the text messages.1 (Dkt. No. 22-1.) 

In determining whether the subpoena should be enforced, the Court is guided not only by 

 

1 Defendants’ Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 1 stated that “defendants did not 

maintain copies or records of any transmissions to Twilio nor did the defendants maintain copies 

of any particular text message. Twilio does maintain certain information regarding the 

defendants’ account; however, this information is gathered and electronically maintained by 

Twilio, not the defendants. The defendants do not know how Twilio tracks this information, and 

the defendants do not know whether the information maintained by Twilio is accurate, reliable, or 

verifiable.” (Dkt. No. 60-1 at 7:9-14.)

Case 3:15-mc-80102-JSC Document 25 Filed 05/21/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, which protects subpoenaed parties from “undue burden,” but 

also Rule 26, which provides, inter alia, that a court may limit discovery if “the discovery sought 

... is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less 

expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Given Twilio’ representation that it would be extremely 

burdensome for it to obtain and produce this information which is equally available to 

Defendants—parties to the underlying litigation—Plaintiffs must first attempt to obtain the 

discovery from Defendants. See Nidec Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan, 249 F.R.D. 575, 577 (N.D. 

Cal. 2007) (“no reason to burden nonparties when the documents sought are in possession of the 

party defendant”). 

Second, it is unclear what precisely Plaintiffs seek in the account profile information 

category. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek discovery of Twilio to determine whether to name 

Twilio as a defendant in the underlying actions, this is an improper use of the subpoena process. 

If Plaintiffs seek the discovery to determine the nature of Defendants’ liability, then Plaintiffs 

must first attempt to obtain the discovery from Defendants. Because it does not appear that 

Plaintiffs have done so, their request to compel additional information regarding Defendants’ 

account profiles is likewise denied.

CONCLUSION

As set forth above, Plaintiffs are not entitled to any additional discovery from Twilio to the 

extent that such information is equally available from Defendants. Accordingly, the previously 

issued Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED and Plaintiffs’ request to compel is DENIED 

without prejudice.

The Clerk shall close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-mc-80102-JSC Document 25 Filed 05/21/15 Page 3 of 3