Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01820/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01820-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Trademark 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUPITER HOSTING, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

JUPITERMEDIA CORP.,

Defendant(s).

 /

No. C 04-1820 CW (MEJ)

ORDER DENYING JUPITERMEDIA'S

REQUEST TO COMPEL FURTHER

DISCOVERY RESPONSES 

The Court is in receipt of the parties' Joint Meet and Confer Statement, filed June 28, 2005. In the

letter, defendant Jupitermedia Corporation ("Defendant") seeks to compel plaintiff Jupiter Hosting

("Plaintiff") to provide further responses to its Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents and

First Set of Interrogatories. Defendant argues that Plaintiff responded with baseless objections, and that its

requests seek relevant information pertaining to Plaintiff's revenues, profits, losses, and related financial

information. 

In response, Plaintiff argues that Defendant brings this issue to the Court well after the last day to

file a motion to compel and, therefore, it should be dismissed. Plaintiff further argues that Defendant's

requests are overbroad, vague and ambiguous, and it cannot respond to unintelligible requests. To the

extent that it was able to respond, Plaintiff argues that it provided complete responses for what it has in its

possession.

Upon review of the parties' letter, the Court finds that it need not consider Defendant's request

because it did not bring the dispute to the Court's attention until after the discovery motion deadline of May

20, 2005. However, while Defendant's failure to abide by the Court's procedural rules would permit the

Case 4:04-cv-01820-CW Document 107 Filed 07/11/05 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

denial of Defendant's request on procedural grounds, the Court finds it appropriate for the case to proceed

on the merits and shall consider the request. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

1) Plaintiff provided sufficient responses to Defendant's interrogatories and need not provide further

responses; and

2) to the extent Plaintiff did not provide responses to Defendant's requests for production, the Court

finds the requests overly broad, vague and ambiguous. Accordingly, Plaintiff need not provide

further responses.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2005 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-01820-CW Document 107 Filed 07/11/05 Page 2 of 2