Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03672/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03672-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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 1 Plaintiff submitted its brief on June 7, 2005; defendants submitted their opposition on June 14,

2005; and plaintiff filed its reply on June 15, 2005.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ASAP SOFTWARE EXPRESS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ELIZABETH HOPKINS, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 04-03672 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

By letter briefs,1 the parties have brought before the Court a dispute regarding plaintiff’s Request

for Production of Documents. Plaintiff asserts that many documents have not been produced by

defendants Hopkins, Boudreaux, and SHI. Defendants state that they have produced or will produce

all responsive documents and will confirm this in a supplemental response for many of the requests

brought by plaintiff. It is not enough for defendants to state that they will provide sufficient discovery

responses; therefore, the Court ORDERS defendants to produce all responsive documents and

supplemental responses that they have promised.

The Court will now turn to defendants’ objections to plaintiff’s request. 

1. Request No. 21 to Hopkins and Boudreaux

In this request, plaintiff asks defendants to “[p]roduce copies of all DOCUMENTS information

utilized in any manner by YOU in servicing any customer on behalf of SHI.” See June 7, 2005 Brief,

Ex. C. Plaintiff contends that these documents will be relevant to its contention that defendants used

Case 3:04-cv-03672-SI Document 53 Filed 07/07/05 Page 1 of 6
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

the knowledge they obtained at ASAP while working for SHI. Defendants state that they will describe

the type of information that Hopkins and Boudreaux relied upon to make any sales to customers at issue;

however, they argue that “there is no reasonable basis to require defendants to disclose SHI’s sales

information or databases, which have nothing to do with plaintiff’s claim of misappropriation.”

However, the Court finds plaintiff’s request reasonable and ORDERS defendants to comply with

Request No. 21.

2. Request No. 20 to SHI

Plaintiff requests “[a]ll computer files, reports, DOCUMENTS, writings, memoranda, or e-mails

that originated from ASAP.” Defendants assert that this request is overbroad, as it would require all SHI

employees worldwide to determine whether they have ever received an email or document from an

employee of ASAP, and they assert that they have already informed plaintiffs that Hopkins and

Boudreaux did not provide SHI with any of ASAP’s documents. Plaintiff argues that the request is

relevant because their allegations involve SHI obtaining ASAP’s documents through improper means.

The Court finds that this request seeks generally relevant information but is overbroad. Plaintiff is

directed to reformulate the request, so as to limit it in time to January 1, 2003 to the present, and in

geographic ambit to SHI offices in California. As so reformulated, defendants will be ORDERED to

comply with the request. 

3. Requests Nos. 21, 22, 30, 31 and 37

Defendants object to these requests on the basis that plaintiff failed to identify specific

customers. In its reply, plaintiff agrees to limit its request to the “target lists” provided by Boudreaux

and Hopkins to SHI. Therefore, the parties appear to be in agreement and the Court will not rule on this

issue. However, the Court finds Request No. 31 to be confusing and, if it is meant to discover records

of contacts between Boudreaux and Hopkins with customers, redundant. The Court DENIES plaintiff’s

request with respect to Request No. 31.

Case 3:04-cv-03672-SI Document 53 Filed 07/07/05 Page 2 of 6
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

3

4. Request No. 29 to SHI

Plaintiff requests “[a]ll DOCUMENTS, including, but not limited to, e-mails, which evidence,

or relate to any COMMUNICATION between YOU and any ASAP employee from January 1, 2003 to

the present.” Defendants contend that this request is overbroad and irrelevant, as it has already

produced communications between SHI and Hopkins and Boudreaux before they were hired by SHI.

The Court finds that the request is appropriate and ORDERS defendants to comply, but notes an overlap

between this request and Request No. 20 to SHI. 

Dated: July 6, 2005 

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03672-SI Document 53 Filed 07/07/05 Page 3 of 6
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 1 Plaintiff submitted its brief on June 7, 2005; defendants submitted their opposition on June 14,

2005; and plaintiff filed its reply on June 15, 2005.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ASAP SOFTWARE EXPRESS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ELIZABETH HOPKINS, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 04-03672 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

By letter briefs,1 the parties have brought before the Court a dispute regarding plaintiff’s Request

for Production of Documents. Plaintiff asserts that many documents have not been produced by

defendants Hopkins, Boudreaux, and SHI. Defendants state that they have produced or will produce

all responsive documents and will confirm this in a supplemental response for many of the requests

brought by plaintiff. It is not enough for defendants to state that they will provide sufficient discovery

responses; therefore, the Court ORDERS defendants to produce all responsive documents and

supplemental responses that they have promised.

The Court will now turn to defendants’ objections to plaintiff’s request. 

1. Request No. 21 to Hopkins and Boudreaux

In this request, plaintiff asks defendants to “[p]roduce copies of all DOCUMENTS information

utilized in any manner by YOU in servicing any customer on behalf of SHI.” See June 7, 2005 Brief,

Ex. C. Plaintiff contends that these documents will be relevant to its contention that defendants used

Case 3:04-cv-03672-SI Document 53 Filed 07/07/05 Page 4 of 6
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

the knowledge they obtained at ASAP while working for SHI. Defendants state that they will describe

the type of information that Hopkins and Boudreaux relied upon to make any sales to customers at issue;

however, they argue that “there is no reasonable basis to require defendants to disclose SHI’s sales

information or databases, which have nothing to do with plaintiff’s claim of misappropriation.”

However, the Court finds plaintiff’s request reasonable and ORDERS defendants to comply with

Request No. 21.

2. Request No. 20 to SHI

Plaintiff requests “[a]ll computer files, reports, DOCUMENTS, writings, memoranda, or e-mails

that originated from ASAP.” Defendants assert that this request is overbroad, as it would require all SHI

employees worldwide to determine whether they have ever received an email or document from an

employee of ASAP, and they assert that they have already informed plaintiffs that Hopkins and

Boudreaux did not provide SHI with any of ASAP’s documents. Plaintiff argues that the request is

relevant because their allegations involve SHI obtaining ASAP’s documents through improper means.

The Court finds that this request seeks generally relevant information but is overbroad. Plaintiff is

directed to reformulate the request, so as to limit it in time to January 1, 2003 to the present, and in

geographic ambit to SHI offices in California. As so reformulated, defendants will be ORDERED to

comply with the request. 

3. Requests Nos. 21, 22, 30, 31 and 37

Defendants object to these requests on the basis that plaintiff failed to identify specific

customers. In its reply, plaintiff agrees to limit its request to the “target lists” provided by Boudreaux

and Hopkins to SHI. Therefore, the parties appear to be in agreement and the Court will not rule on this

issue. However, the Court finds Request No. 31 to be confusing and, if it is meant to discover records

of contacts between Boudreaux and Hopkins with customers, redundant. The Court DENIES plaintiff’s

request with respect to Request No. 31.

Case 3:04-cv-03672-SI Document 53 Filed 07/07/05 Page 5 of 6
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

3

4. Request No. 29 to SHI

Plaintiff requests “[a]ll DOCUMENTS, including, but not limited to, e-mails, which evidence,

or relate to any COMMUNICATION between YOU and any ASAP employee from January 1, 2003 to

the present.” Defendants contend that this request is overbroad and irrelevant, as it has already

produced communications between SHI and Hopkins and Boudreaux before they were hired by SHI.

The Court finds that the request is appropriate and ORDERS defendants to comply, but notes an overlap

between this request and Request No. 20 to SHI. 

Dated: July 6, 2005 

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03672-SI Document 53 Filed 07/07/05 Page 6 of 6