Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05262/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05262-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

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

CHRISTOPHER R. HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-5262 CRB (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Docket No. 123)

Defendant the San Jose Mercury News, Inc. has filed a motion to compel further responses to

certain document requests and requests for admission served on Plaintiff Christopher R. Harris. 

Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, as well as the oral argument

of counsel (presented during a conference call on October 31, 2005), the Court hereby GRANTS in

part and DENIES in part the motion to compel.

The motion to compel is denied in part as moot because Mr. Harris has provided

supplemental responses to the requests for admission at issue and a supplemental confirmation for

RFPs Nos. 2, 4-6, 8, 12-14, 19-21, 23, 24, 28, and 34-35. These responses and confirmation are

sufficient to satisfy the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s prior order.

The motion to compel is granted in part with respect to the request for a supplemental

confirmation for RFPs Nos. 7, 10, and 11. During the conference call, Mr. Harris represented that

there are only two or three documents being withheld with respect to these requests. Mr. Harris also

conceded that the documents are not being withheld on the basis of privilege and that the documents

are relevant to other issues in the case (e.g., copyright invalidity). Even though Judge Breyer has

Case 3:04-cv-05262-CRB Document 138 Filed 11/01/05 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

limited discovery for the present to fair use, the Court notes that it construes relevance broadly for

purposes of discovery -- in other words, so long as there is a viable theory supporting relevance to

the issue of fair use, the documents should be produced. Given the Court’s broad construction of

relevance, the fact that there are only two or three documents being withheld (none on the basis of

privilege which Defendant contends may be relevant to the issue of fair use), the fact that the

documents would eventually be produced in this litigation in any event, and the fact that Mr. Harris

has identified no cognizable prejudice were these documents produced now, the Court orders that

Mr. Harris serve a supplemental confirmation for the requests and further orders that Mr. Harris

produce the documents being withheld by November 1, 2005, at 4:00 p.m.

This order disposes of Docket No. 123.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2005

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05262-CRB Document 138 Filed 11/01/05 Page 2 of 2