Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01865/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01865-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1 

14CV1865 AJB (JMA) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN DIEGO COMIC-CONVENTION, 

etc., 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

DAN FARR PRODUCTIONS, etc., et 

al., 

 Defendants.

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM.

 Case No.: 14CV1865 AJB (JMA) 

ORDER REGARDING JOINT 

MOTIONS FOR DETERMINATION 

OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

[ECF Nos. 72, 73] 

Presently before the Court are two joint motions for determination of 

discovery dispute brought by Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant San Diego Comic-Con 

(“SDCC”) and Defendant/Counterclaimant Dan Farr Productions, LLC (“DFP”). 

(ECF Nos. 72, 73.) The Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 

A. DFP’s Responses to SDCC’s First Set of Requests for 

 Production of Documents 

Request No. 25: This request seeks “all YouTube videos concerning” Salt 

Lake Comic Con. DFP can only be required to produce information in its 

possession, custody, or control. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Thus, to the 

extent this request seeks the production of videos about Salt Lake Comic Con 

Case 3:14-cv-01865-AJB-JMA Document 79 Filed 01/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
 2 

14CV1865 AJB (JMA) 

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

posted by third parties, the request is overbroad. Moreover, such videos are 

equally accessible by SDCC via YouTube as they are by DFP. As for videos 

created or controlled by DFP, DFP has responded that its YouTube videos 

concerning Salt Lake Comic Con are located online and are publically available. 

DFP does not download or store an archive of YouTube videos, and states that if 

someone at DFP wanted a copy of a YouTube video related to Salt Lake Comic 

Con, he or she would be required to locate and access it through ordinary public 

internet access. Jacques Decl., ¶¶ 6-7. SDCC has provided no argument or 

reason it cannot obtain the information it seeks by accessing the videos on 

YouTube. Therefore, SDCC’s request for an order compelling DFP to produce 

YouTube videos concerning its Salt Lake Comic Convention is denied. 

Request Nos. 26, 40, 42, and 44: Request No. 26 seeks “communications 

by anyone” concerning Salt Lake Comic Con including communications 

appearing on “third party websites, on your website, weblogs, Facebook page, 

Twitter page, or any form of social media.” Request Nos. 40, 42, and 44 seek “all 

complaints, comments or postings” concerning the 2013, 2014, and 2015 Salt 

Lake Comic Cons, respectively, posted on DFP’s website, Facebook page, or 

Twitter feed. The Court first observes that Request No. 26, as phrased, is 

extremely overbroad as it seeks information not in DFP’s possession, custody, or 

control, as well as information that is equally available online to both parties. 

Moreover, communications made on sites and accounts controlled by DFP, 

including its Salt Lake Comic Con website, Facebook page, Twitter account, and 

other social media, are, in large part, publically available and thus equally 

accessible online by SDCC as they are by DFP. Joint Mot. at 1-2. 

As for communications concerning Salt Lake Comic Con that are not 

publically available, DFP does not contend such information should not be 

produced; rather, it argues SDCC should be required to inspect such information 

in its offices in Salt Lake City. Joint Mot. at 10. This proposal, however, is not 

Case 3:14-cv-01865-AJB-JMA Document 79 Filed 01/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
 3 

14CV1865 AJB (JMA) 

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

consistent with Rule 1, which requires “the just, speedy, and inexpensive 

determination of every action and proceeding,” nor does it recognize the current 

and commonplace practice of producing copies of documents or electronically 

stored information in lieu of permitting inspection of such items. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 34 (Advisory Committee Notes, 2015 Amendment). SDCC has provided a 

copy of Facebook’s procedures for accessing Facebook data, which provide that 

a user can download the data on its account, including information hidden from 

public view such as chats, items hidden from a user’s news feed, and messages. 

Herrera Decl., Ex. 1. This appears to be the least burdensome, cost-efficient, 

and orderly means for DFP to produce the information sought by SDCC. 

Therefore, the Court orders DFP to download all communications regarding Salt 

Lake Comic Con made on its Facebook page that are restricted from public view, 

and produce such information to SDCC by January 13, 2017. 

SDCC has also provided a copy of Twitter’s procedures for users to access 

their Twitter data. Herrera Decl., Exs. 2, 4. The Court believes the only items on 

DFP’s Salt Lake Comic Con Twitter account that are not publically accessible by 

SDCC are “direct messages,” which are private. The Court orders DFP to 

access, download, and produce to SDCC its direct messages made via Twitter 

relating to Salt Lake Comic Con. DFP shall also employ any similar procedures 

to obtain and produce information not publically accessible on its other Salt Lake 

Comic Con social media accounts by January 13, 2017. 

Based on the record before the Court, it does not appear possible to order 

DFP to produce communications made on its Salt Lake Comic Con Facebook 

page which were subsequently deleted. According to Facebook, “You will not 

find information or content that you have deleted because this is deleted from 

Facebook’s servers.” Herrera Decl., Ex. 1. And, according to DFP, “it does not 

maintain records of complaints, comments or postings that are posted on the Salt 

Lake Comic Con website, Facebook page, or Twitter feed, apart from what is 

Case 3:14-cv-01865-AJB-JMA Document 79 Filed 01/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
 4 

14CV1865 AJB (JMA) 

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

located online and publically available.” Resp. to Req. for Prod. Nos. 40, 42, 44. 

B. SDCC’s Responses to DFP’s First Set of Requests for 

 Production of Documents

Request Nos. 40 and 50: These requests seek documents reflecting “any 

lessening of good will or brand degradation” and “any lost revenue” experienced 

by SDCC as a result of Salt Lake Comic Con. SDCC states it has already 

agreed to produce some documents that fall within the scope of these requests 

through its responses to other document requests propounded by DFP. Joint 

Mot. at 13. For example, it has agreed to produce documents reflecting 

complaints SDCC received from attendees of Salt Lake Comic Con who believed 

the parties’ conventions were related, and other reports of confusion. Id. 

Although other responsive documents apparently exist, SDCC has declined to 

produce them because the requests seek information that will be the subject of 

expert testimony to be disclosed at the time and in the matter set forth in the 

scheduling order. Id. at 14-15. SDCC states, “It is unduly burdensome and 

patently unfair . . . to demand that SDCC produce this information now before its 

experts have even had an opportunity to determine which documents are 

relevant to their opinions.” Id. at 15. The Court disagrees. Any nonprivileged 

documents or ESI responsive to these requests are relevant to the claims and 

defenses in this case and should be produced now notwithstanding that they may 

eventually become the source of expert opinion and testimony. SDCC shall 

produce any such documents by January 13, 2017. 

Request Nos. 54-63: These requests seek documents reflecting 

complaints, requests for refunds, actual refunds, and complaints or investigations 

undertaken by any governmental entity regarding SDCC’s conventions. DFP 

seeks this information in order to establish that complaints and negative 

experiences can occur at any convention, including SDCC’s own conventions. 

Joint Mot. at 10. DFP further contends it is “hypocritical” and “predatory” for 

Case 3:14-cv-01865-AJB-JMA Document 79 Filed 01/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
 5 

14CV1865 AJB (JMA) 

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

SDCC to seek production of these categories of documents from DFP while 

objecting to requests for production of the same types of documents from DFP. 

The Court wholeheartedly disagrees. The issue in this case is whether SDCC 

was injured by reason of DFP’s conduct vis-à-vis Salt Lake Comic Con. Any 

complaints, requests for refunds, actual refunds, or investigations undertaken 

regarding SDCC’s conventions have no bearing on this issue. As these requests 

seek information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this case, DFP’s 

request for an order compelling the production of documents in response to 

these requests is denied. 

Meet and Confer Requirement: As set forth in the undersigned’s 

Chambers Rules: 

The Court expects strict compliance with the meet and 

confer requirement, as it is the experience of the Court 

that the vast majority of disputes can be resolved by 

means of that process. Counsel must thoroughly meet 

and confer and shall make every effort to resolve all 

disputes without the necessity of court intervention. 

It is not clear to the Court that the parties with complied with this 

requirement. The Court emphasizes the parties must thoroughly comply with the 

meet and confer requirement and make every effort to resolve any disputes 

without the necessity of court intervention. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 6, 2017 

Case 3:14-cv-01865-AJB-JMA Document 79 Filed 01/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5