Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798-122/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

LOOP AI LABS INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANNA GATTI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00798-HSG (DMR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 731

Plaintiff Loop AI Labs Inc. filed a motion for sanctions against Defendants Almaviva 

S.p.A. and Almawave S.r.l. (together, the “Italian Almawave Defendants”). [Docket No. 731.] 

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against the Italian Almawave Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 16(f) based on their purported failure to engage in fact discovery in violation of 

the scheduling orders issued by the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam. The Italian Almawave 

Defendants and Defendant Almawave USA, Inc. (“Almawave USA”) oppose the motion. [Docket 

No. 773.] The court held a hearing on October 31, 2016. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s 

motion is denied.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On February 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed this action against the Italian Almawave Defendants

and Almawave USA, Inc. (together, the “Almawave Defendants”), as well as Anna Gatti, 

IQSystem LLC, and IQSystem, Inc. It filed the first amended complaint on April 6, 2015. 

[Docket No. 45.] On April 23, 2015, the Italian Almawave Defendants moved to dismiss the first 

amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. [Docket No. 62.] 

On May 26, 2015, while the jurisdictional motion to dismiss was pending, Judge Gilliam 

conducted an initial case management conference at which he set a January 29, 2016 deadline for 

the completion of fact discovery. [Docket Nos. 100 (Minute Order), 105 (Scheduling Order).] 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 964 Filed 12/27/16 Page 1 of 13
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

Despite the pending motion to dismiss, the court did not stay any party’s discovery obligations. 

In August 2015, Plaintiff served its first set of written discovery on the Italian Almawave 

Defendants. This set included interrogatories and requests for production (“RFPs”). [Docket No. 

731-1 (Healy Decl., June 15, 2016) Exs. A, F (discovery responses showing Aug. 17, 2015 service 

date).]1 

On September 2, 2015, Judge Gilliam denied the Italian Almawave Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss without prejudice and ordered jurisdictional discovery. [Docket No. 183.] In so ruling, 

Judge Gilliam held that the outcome of the motion turned on whether Plaintiff’s claims against the 

Italian Almawave Defendants “arise out of” those defendants’ forum-related activities. Judge 

Gilliam therefore allowed Plaintiff to take jurisdictional discovery directly related to the merits of 

the case, namely, to test whether the Italian Almawave Defendants had participated in the scheme 

alleged in the first amended complaint. Id. Judge Gilliam ordered the parties to meet and confer 

on the “appropriate scope and length of the jurisdictional discovery period, taking into account any 

discovery completed during the pendency of th[e] motion [to dismiss]” and to submit a stipulation 

and proposed order. Id. at 6. If the parties were unable to reach agreement, the court directed 

them to submit their dispute to the undersigned for resolution. Id.

On September 16, 2015, the Italian Almawave Defendants each responded to the twelve 

interrogatories in Plaintiff’s first set of written discovery with the following objection: 

[Almaviva S.p.A./Almawave S.r.l] objects to this 

[interrogatory/request] and does not provide a response on the 

grounds that the Court has not yet determined that it has personal 

jurisdiction over [Almaviva S.p.A./Almawave S.r.l]; obligating 

[Almaviva S.p.A./Almawave S.r.l.] to participate in discovery 

before personal jurisdiction is determined violates Constitutional 

requirements of due process. The Court has ordered that only 

limited jurisdictional discovery may proceed; which discovery has 

not yet been approved by stipulation or Court order.

On the same date, the Italian Almawave Defendants each provided the same objection in response 

 

1

In its sanctions motion, Plaintiff describes its March 3, 2015 service of interrogatories and RFPs 

on the Italian Almawave Defendants in connection with its request for expedited discovery. 

Plaintiff asserts that the Italian Almawave Defendants ignored these requests. Pl.’s Mot. at 7. 

Notably, Plaintiff fails to mention that Judge Gilliam denied Plaintiff’s request for expedited 

discovery on March 12, 2015. These discovery requests are therefore irrelevant to the instant 

motion. [Docket No. 32.]

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 964 Filed 12/27/16 Page 2 of 13
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

to each of Plaintiff’s 108 RFPs. Healy Decl., June 15, 2016, Exs. A (Almaviva S.p.A.’s 

responses), F (Almawave S.r.l.’s responses).

Plaintiff served a second set of written discovery on the Italian Almawave Defendants on 

September 15, 2015. Healy Decl. Exs. B, G (discovery responses showing Sept. 15, 2015 service 

date). On October 15, 2015, while the jurisdictional discovery dispute remained pending, the 

Italian Almawave Defendants each responded to the 19 RFPs in Plaintiff’s second set of written 

discovery with virtually the same objection set forth above. Healy Decl. Exs. B (Almaviva 

S.p.A.’s responses), G (Almawave S.r.l.’s responses).

Later in October 2015, Plaintiff located Valeria Sandei and Raniero Romagnoli, two 

officers of Almawave S.r.l., in San Diego, California and personally served them with subpoenas 

duces tecum and ad testificandum, requesting 109 categories of documents. Healy Decl. Ex. T; 

Culp Decl., June 29, 2016, Exs. C, D. The subpoenas sought compliance in San Diego on 

December 14 and 15, 2015. Id. Sandei and Romagnoli served objections to the subpoenas on 

November 2, 2015, including the objection that each subpoena “improperly compels compliance 

further than 100 miles from where Responding Party resides, is employed, or regularly transacts 

business in person.” Healy Decl. Exs. V, W. Plaintiff asserts that neither witness appeared or 

produced documents in response to the subpoenas. Healy Decl. ¶¶ 31, 33, 34. 

Plaintiff and the Italian Almawave Defendants were unable to reach an agreement on 

jurisdictional discovery and filed a joint letter brief describing their disputes on September 23, 

2015. [Docket No. 211.] The undersigned scheduled a discovery hearing for October 30, 2015. 

[Docket No. 266]. The hearing was continued to December 10, 2015 at Plaintiff’s request. 

[Docket Nos. 270, 273].

On December 10, 2015, the undersigned conducted a three-hour hearing on the parties’

jurisdictional as well as other discovery disputes. The parties expressed their agreement that the 

jurisdictional discovery was inextricably intertwined with the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. 

[Docket No. 335 (Dec. 10, 2015 Hr’g Tr.) at 4, 34, 36.] The court set deadlines for jurisdictional 

discovery to be completed by January 15, 2016, but held that depositions could be conducted 

beyond the deadline per the parties’ stipulation. The court permitted Plaintiff to serve five 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 964 Filed 12/27/16 Page 3 of 13
4

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

jurisdiction-related interrogatories to each of the Almawave Defendants, and also ordered that 

Plaintiff could take 28 hours of jurisdiction-related depositions. [Docket No. 323.] 

The court also addressed the Almawave Defendants’ document production at the 

December 10, 2015 hearing. According to defense counsel, Plaintiff had asked the Italian 

Almawave Defendants to respond to 108 previously-propounded RFPs as part of jurisdictional 

discovery. Hr’g Tr. at 19. Defense counsel asserted that the Almawave Defendants were 

producing responsive documents in three “volumes,” and that the first volume had been produced 

in mid-November 2015. Id. at 18. He stated that in order to preserve the Italian Almawave 

Defendants’ jurisdictional objections, the document production came “under the auspices of 

[Almawave] U.S.A.,” but represented to the court that there was “no distinction [between the 

Almawave Defendants]. We are not withholding documents from the Italians. So U.S.A. is 

making the production on behalf of everyone.” Id. at 20.2 The court ordered Almawave USA to 

produce Volumes II and III of the Almawave Defendants’ document production by December 18, 

2015 and December 31, 2015, respectively. [Docket No. 323.]

The Almawave Defendants produced witnesses Valeria Sandei, Raniero Romagnoli, Luca 

Ferri, Mariantonietta Perri, and Angela Nicolella for depositions during the week of January 19, 

2016. Culp Decl. ¶ 9. Plaintiff did not depose all of these witnesses. Id. The Italian Almawave 

Defendants also each responded to five jurisdictional interrogatories. Id. at ¶ 7. The final 

jurisdictional deposition was conducted February 3, 2016. [See Docket No. 398 (Order granting 

stipulation to continue G. DiNapoli’s deposition to Feb. 3, 2016).]

On February 2, 2016, Judge Gilliam held a second case management conference and 

continued the fact discovery deadline to March 29, 2016. [Docket No. 413 (Minute Order), 411 

(Second Scheduling Order).] 

 

2

 Defendants articulated this approach once again in a February 18, 2016 letter to Plaintiff, which 

states: “As we have previously informed you, there are no documents that [the Italian Almawave 

Defendants] would produce that Almawave USA... has not already undertaken to produce. In 

other words, even though the Italian Almawave Defendants object – and have objected – to 

participating in discovery in this case on the basis that the Court lacks jurisdiction over them, their 

jurisdictional objections have not deprived Loop of receiving the Italian Almawave Defendants’ 

responsive documents (to the extent any such responsive documents exist).” [Docket No. 907-3].

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 964 Filed 12/27/16 Page 4 of 13
5

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

Following the close of jurisdictional discovery, Plaintiff served three additional sets of 

written discovery on the Italian Almawave Defendants. On February 25, 2016, in response to 

Plaintiff’s third set of written discovery, the Italian Almawave Defendants each responded to 

Plaintiff’s new 7 RFPs with the following objection:

[Almaviva S.p.A./Almawave S.r.l] objects to this request on the 

grounds that the Court has not yet determined that it has personal 

jurisdiction over [Almaviva S.p.A./Almawave S.r.l]; obligating 

[Almaviva S.p.A./Almawave S.r.l.] to participate in discovery 

beyond the targeted and limited personal jurisdiction discovery that 

was ordered violates Constitutional requirements of due process. 

The Court has ordered that only limited jurisdictional discovery may 

proceed; which has concluded as of February 3, 2016.

Healy Decl. Exs. C (Almaviva S.p.A.’s responses), H (Almawave S.r.l.’s responses).

On March 10, 2016, the Italian Almawave Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s second 

amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. [Docket No. 469.] On March 28, 2016, the 

Italian Almawave Defendants each responded to Plaintiff’s fourth and fifth sets of written 

discovery with virtually the same objection and response they provided in response to the third set 

of discovery, above.3 Healy Decl. Exs. D (Almaviva S.p.A.’s responses to fourth set), E 

(Almaviva S.p.A.’s responses to fifth set), I (Almawave S.r.l.’s responses to fourth set), J 

(Almawave S.r.l.’s responses to fifth set).

On June 8, 2016, Judge Gilliam denied the Italian Almawave Defendants’ motion to

dismiss Plaintiff’s second amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. [Docket No. 726.]

II. DISCUSSION

A. Rule 16 Sanctions

Plaintiff moves for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, asserting that 

the Italian Almawave Defendants violated the court’s scheduling orders by refusing to engage in 

fact discovery. Rule 16 authorizes a court to “issue any just orders, including those authorized by 

Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), if a party or its attorney . . . fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial 

order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(C). Rule 37(b)(2)(A) authorizes a variety of sanctions, including 

 

3

Plaintiff’s fourth set of written discovery included 109 new RFPs and five interrogatories. Its 

fifth set of written discovery included 17 new RFPs. Healy Decl. Exs. D, E, I, J.

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 964 Filed 12/27/16 Page 5 of 13
6

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

“prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or 

from introducing designated matters in evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii). Plaintiff 

asserts that the preclusion sanction authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii) is appropriate to address the 

Italian Almawave Defendants’ refusal to allow Plaintiff “to obtain any fact discovery in violation 

of the Rule 16 Scheduling Order, which required them to engage in and allow fact discovery and 

to complete all such fact discovery by March 29, 2016.” Mot. at 13. It asks the court to preclude 

the introduction by any defendant of testimonial evidence by any officers or employees of the 

Italian Almawave Defendants, preclude the Italian Almawave Defendants’ introduction of any 

documentary evidence at summary judgment or trial, preclude the Almawave Defendants from 

introducing any expert testimony, and preclude the Almawave Defendants from using “evidence 

obtained by Almawave USA Inc. or any other Defendant during the course of fact discovery in 

which the Italian Almaviva Defendants refused to engage.” Id. at 16-17. Plaintiff’s motion rests 

primarily on the Italian Almawave Defendants’ refusal to provide substantive responses to 

Plaintiff’s first through fifth sets of written discovery, described above.

The Italian Almawave Defendants dispute Plaintiff’s assertion that they did not engage in 

fact discovery. Notwithstanding their jurisdictional objections to Plaintiff’s first through fifth sets 

of discovery, they assert that by the March 29, 2016 close of fact discovery, they had “timely 

responded to all requests for production served on them,” and produced more than 54,000 pages of 

documents in response to 261 document requests propounded to Almaviva S.p.A., 264 document 

requests propounded to Almawave S.r.l., and 263 document requests propounded to Almawave 

USA. Culp Decl. ¶ 8. Defense counsel asserts that the vast majority of the documents were 

obtained from the Italian Almawave Defendants. Id. The Italian Almawave Defendants further 

contend that they “timely responded” to an additional 17 interrogatories beyond the five

jurisdictional interrogatories ordered by the court. Culp Decl. ¶ 7. 

At the hearing, defense counsel conceded that the Italian Almawave Defendants had not 

provided substantive responses to Plaintiff’s first through fifth sets of discovery, but represented 

that this was because the Italian Almawave Defendants were concerned that responding to 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 964 Filed 12/27/16 Page 6 of 13
7

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

Plaintiff’s discovery could be construed as a waiver of their jurisdictional challenge.4 [Docket No. 

946 (Oct. 31, 2016 Hr’g Tr.) at 9-10, 11.] Therefore, the Italian Almawave Defendants responded 

to Plaintiff’s discovery under the auspices of Almawave USA. Defense counsel further 

represented that as to Plaintiff’s RFPs, the Italian Almawave Defendants “did not have any 

objections over and above those of Almawave USA.” Id. at 13. In other words, according to 

defense counsel, the Italian Almawave Defendants did not withhold any responsive documents 

due to an objection that was not also asserted on behalf of Almawave USA. See id. at 14. 

Counsel noted at the hearing that Valeria Sandei, an officer of the Almawave Defendants, had 

stated the same in a declaration signed under penalty of perjury. In that declaration, Sandei, who 

is the President of Almawave USA, CEO of Almawave S.r.l., and Strategic Marketing Officer for 

the Almawave Defendants, states that “for purposes of [the Almawave Defendants’] collection and 

production of documents” in discovery, the individuals collecting documents “made no distinction 

between which Almawave entity or person ‘controlled’ the document and assumed that any 

document within the possession, custody or control of the Italian Almawave Defendants was also 

in the possession, custody or control of Almawave USA.” [Docket No. 907-4 (Sandei Decl., Oct. 

11, 2016, ¶¶ 1, 3.] She states that “no distinction was made between the three Almawave entities 

for purposes of document collection, review, or production,” and that “[t]he Italian Almawave 

Defendants’ documents were included in the documents produced by Almawave USA.” Id. at ¶¶ 

3, 4. 

As to the 17 interrogatories propounded to the Italian Almawave Defendants (in addition to 

the five court-ordered jurisdictional interrogatories), Sandei states that Plaintiff propounded nearly 

identical interrogatories on Almawave USA, and that the “substantive responses that Loop 

received from Almawave USA were virtually the same—if not exactly the same—as the responses 

that the Italian Almawave Defendants would have provided but for their then-pending objections 

to jurisdiction.” Id. at ¶ 5; see also Culp Decl. ¶ 7. Sandei states that “[i]n sum, Almawave has 

 

4 Defense counsel stated, “[s]imply by submitting written responses the concern was that we 

would—more than a concern. We were told we would face an argument that that was a waiver of 

their jurisdiction challenge.” Oct. 31, 2016 Hr’g Tr. at 9. Plaintiff did not refute this assertion.

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 964 Filed 12/27/16 Page 7 of 13
8

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

not withheld any information or documents on the basis that such documents or information was 

in the possession, custody, and control of, or known only by the Italian Almawave Defendants and 

not Almawave USA.” Sandei Decl. ¶ 6. Additionally, defense counsel represented at the hearing 

that in responding to Plaintiff’s RFPs and interrogatories, the Almawave Defendants drew no 

distinction between jurisdictional discovery and merits discovery. Oct. 31, 2016 Hr’g Tr. at 15-

16.

At the hearing, Plaintiff argued that defense counsel’s representations are inconsistent with 

the positions that Almawave USA took in discovery. Oct. 31, 2016 Hr’g Tr. at 41-42. 

Specifically, Plaintiff points to Almawave USA’s general objections to Plaintiff’s first set of 

discovery, in which it wrote, “Almawave USA objects to each of the interrogatories and requests 

to the extent they seek documents and information not in Almawave USA’s possession, custody, 

or control,” and “Almawave USA objects to the instructions to the extent they require the 

production of documents and information not in Almawave USA’s possession, custody, or 

control.” [Docket No. 897-12 at 3-4.] Plaintiff is technically correct on this point. However, as 

discussed above, defense counsel explained that the Italian Almawave Defendants made the 

objections on paper in order to avoid Plaintiff’s threatened argument that they waived 

jurisdictional objections by responding to discovery. From a practical standpoint, the Italian 

Almawave Defendants responded to the discovery requests through Almawave USA. To support 

this statement, the Almawave Defendants submitted a declaration in which Sandei states under 

oath that the individuals gathering responsive documents “assumed that any document within the 

possession, custody or control of the Italian Almawave Defendants was also in the possession, 

custody or control of Almawave USA.” Sandei Decl. ¶ 3. 

At the hearing, defense counsel admitted that the Italian Almawave Defendants did not 

subsequently amend their discovery responses after the court denied their motion to dismiss 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction on June 8, 2016, which was 

several months after the close of discovery. Oct. 31, 2016 Hr’g Tr. at 18, 20. The Italian 

Almawave Defendants should have promptly served amended responses once their jurisdictional 

challenge was finally adjudicated. However, having reviewed defense counsel’s representations at 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 964 Filed 12/27/16 Page 8 of 13
9

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 October 31, 2016 hearing, Sandei’s declaration, and counsel’s declaration in opposition to 

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, the court finds that the Italian Almawave Defendants did not 

“refuse to engage in and allow fact discovery” in violation of any court orders. Rule 16 sanctions 

are therefore inappropriate. In order to clarify the record, the Italian Almawave Defendants shall

promptly amend their discovery responses to comport with their representations.

B. Alleged Deficiencies in the Almawave Defendants’ Document Productions

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions also challenges the sufficiency of Almawave USA’s 

document production. It describes several categories of documents that it contends were never 

produced. Mot. at 3, Reply at 3-4. For example, Plaintiff contends that Almawave USA did not 

produce evidence of internal deliberations regarding the decision to hire Gatti, or confidentiality 

agreements between Gatti and the Almawave Defendants. Mot. at 3. The Almawave Defendants 

object that this portion of Plaintiff’s motion is an untimely motion to compel, a characterization 

with which the court agrees.5 Fact discovery closed on March 29, 2016. The deadline to file a 

motion to compel has long passed, and Plaintiff had ample opportunity during discovery to 

challenge Almawave USA’s responses to discovery. However, as detailed below, Plaintiff 

repeatedly and inexplicably failed to comply with the court’s orders and procedures governing

motions to compel discovery.

This case was referred to the undersigned for discovery on June 16, 2015. [Docket No. 

113.] The court’s June 18, 2015 Notice of Reference and Order re Discovery Procedures set forth 

the procedure by which the parties could seek resolution of discovery disputes. [Docket No. 117; 

see also Docket No. 401 (Jan. 27, 2016 Notice of Amended Discovery Procedures).] That order, 

which incorporates portions of the undersigned’s Standing Order, provides that in lieu of filing 

formal discovery motions, the parties shall meet and confer in person or by telephone and then file 

a joint letter addressing remaining disputes. It also provides that “[i]n the rare instance that a joint 

letter is not possible, each side may submit a letter not to exceed three pages, which shall include 

 

5 At the hearing, defense counsel asserted that the documents described by Plaintiff either do not 

exist or were in fact produced by the Almawave Defendants. Oct. 31, 2016 Hr’g Tr. at 20-22. 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 964 Filed 12/27/16 Page 9 of 13
10

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

an explanation of why a joint letter was not possible.” Id. at 2. On July 24, 2015, following a 

discovery management conference, the court ordered the parties to audio-record all in-person or 

telephonic meet and confer communications and maintain logs of such communications. The 

court also prohibited the parties from filing ex parte (i.e., unilateral rather than joint) discovery 

letters without the court’s leave. [Docket No. 156.] 

Notwithstanding the court’s order, the parties filed a number of ex parte discovery letters 

and responses thereto without permission in September 2015. [See, e.g., Docket Nos. 192, 205, 

213, 216, 217, 219, 220, 221.] On September 28, 2015, the court issued an order expressing its 

“disapproval of the parties’ dismal record regarding their meet and confer efforts,” and stated that 

it would no longer consider any ex parte discovery letter filed without prior approval. [Docket No. 

222.] Going forward, the court directed the parties to seek leave to file ex parte discovery letters 

by filing a one-page motion for administrative relief pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, warning 

the parties that the court would only grant leave to file an ex parte letter “in exceptional 

circumstances.” Id. 

After the court issued these directives, all of the parties, including Plaintiff, made attempts 

to seek relief related to discovery disputes by filing administrative motions for leave to file ex 

parte discovery letters. For example, on October 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed an administrative motion 

for leave to file motions to compel discovery as to all Defendants. In its administrative motion, 

Plaintiff blatantly admitted that it had not complied with the court’s joint discovery letter 

procedure, cavalierly asserting that “there is no reason to believe that any meet and confer would 

be productive.” [Docket No. 247.] On October 16, 2015, the court issued an order denying 

Plaintiff’s administrative motion as well as five other administrative motions for leave to file ex 

parte discovery letters filed by Defendants Almawave USA, Gatti, and IQSystem LLC. The court 

found that the parties had failed to show “exceptional circumstances,” i.e., the moving parties had 

failed to show that despite their efforts, their opposing party had refused to meet and confer and/or 

participate in the court’s mandatory joint letter procedure.6 [Docket No. 271.] The court 

 

6

The court also denied a joint letter filed by Plaintiff and Gatti/IQSystem LLC on the ground that 

it was “joint” in name only, since the parties never met and conferred about the issues therein, and 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 964 Filed 12/27/16 Page 10 of 13
11

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

reiterated its expectation that the parties would “engage in meaningful meet and confer sessions 

aimed at resolving most if not all discovery disputes without court intervention,” and expressed 

concern about the parties’ “failure to actually engage in the necessary work of sorting through the 

substantive issues and attempting to reach appropriate compromises.” Id.

As discussed above, the court held a hearing and made rulings regarding the scope of 

jurisdictional discovery in December 2015. On January 11, 2016, one week before jurisdictional 

depositions were scheduled to begin, Plaintiff filed an “administrative motion to compel 

jurisdictional discovery” from the Almawave Defendants in which it described purported 

problems with their interrogatory responses and document production. [Docket No. 369.] The 

court ruled on Plaintiff’s administrative motion the following day, January 12, 2016. [Docket No. 

374.] Noting that “it appears there are issues with the jurisdictional discovery on both sides that 

require further discussion by the parties,” and describing several examples, the court ordered the 

parties to meet and confer on the issues raised in Plaintiff’s motion on an expedited schedule and 

file a joint letter regarding any remaining disputes by January 14, 2016, and denied Plaintiff’s 

administrative motion without prejudice. [Docket No. 374.] Following its receipt of the parties’ 

joint letter (Docket No. 379), the court granted Plaintiff leave “to file a regularly-noticed motion 

addressing only those issues raised in the joint letter.” [Docket No. 382.] Inexplicably, Plaintiff 

never filed a motion in compliance with this order.

In March and April 2016, Plaintiff made a number of further attempts to obtain court 

intervention with respect to discovery, most of which were denied for failure to comply with the 

court’s procedures. On March 7, 2016, without first seeking leave to file an ex parte letter, 

Plaintiff filed a unilateral discovery letter brief seeking to compel the continuation of the 

depositions of Sandei, Romagnoli, and Perri, and to take Ferri’s deposition. [Docket No. 448.] 

Although Plaintiff referred in its letter to its “attempts to schedule” the depositions, it did not 

describe any efforts to meet and confer with the Almawave Defendants or to submit a joint letter 

on the dispute. The court denied the motion on March 9, 2016 on the ground that there was no 

 

denied a motion by Plaintiff for leave to file a motion for contempt as to a third party (Docket No. 

265) for failure to show exceptional circumstances.

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 964 Filed 12/27/16 Page 11 of 13
12

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

indication in the letter that Plaintiff attempted to comply with the court’s Standing Order regarding 

resolution of discovery disputes. [Docket No. 455.] On March 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed an 

administrative motion for leave to file a motion to compel the depositions of Sandei, Romagnoli, 

Perri, and Ferri, representing that the Almawave Defendants had refused to participate in a joint 

letter on the issue. [Docket No. 474.] The Almawave Defendants filed an opposition in which 

they contradicted Plaintiff’s representations of their willingness to participate in joint letter. 

[Docket No. 480.] On March 21, 2016, the court denied the motion on the ground that Plaintiff 

had not demonstrated “exceptional circumstances” to file an ex parte discovery letter. [Docket 

No. 501.]

On March 30, 2016, after the close of fact discovery, Plaintiff filed an administrative 

motion for leave to file unilateral discovery letter briefs to compel document productions from the 

Almawave Defendants (and others) and depositions from “the Italian Almaviva Defendants.” 

[Docket No. 542.] In its motion, Plaintiff asserted that each of the Defendants had refused to join

in Plaintiff’s discovery letters. Id. Finding that Plaintiff had shown exceptional circumstances, 

the court granted Plaintiff leave to file an ex parte discovery letter as to its motion to compel 

further depositions. [Docket No. 582.] On April 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed an ex parte discovery 

letter in which it moved to compel the depositions of Sandei, Romagnoli, Perri, and Ferri. 

[Docket No. 591.] However, despite Plaintiff’s claim that the Almawave Defendants refused to 

produce the witnesses for deposition, correspondence between the parties showed that the 

Almawave Defendants had in fact asked Plaintiff to propose dates for the depositions and offered 

specific dates for the depositions before the close of fact discovery. [Docket No. 599.] 

Accordingly, on May 6, 2016, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel. [Docket No. 647.]

In its March 30, 2016 administrative motion, Plaintiff also sought leave to file a unilateral 

discovery letter to address the Italian Almawave Defendants’ and Almawave USA’s document 

production. The court denied Plaintiff’s motion as to the Italian Almawave Defendants on the 

basis that Plaintiff had not shown exceptional circumstances because it never sought to engage 

those parties in the joint letter process. [Docket No. 582.] As to Almawave USA, it presented 

evidence that it had in fact responded to Plaintiff’s attempts to submit a joint letter, including 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 964 Filed 12/27/16 Page 12 of 13
13

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

providing its portion of a joint letter, contrary to Plaintiff’s representations. [Docket No. 560.] 

Accordingly, the court ordered Plaintiff to submit a statement explaining why Almawave USA’s 

actions did not constitute an attempt to participate in the joint letter process. [Docket No. 582.] In 

its statement, Plaintiff conceded that Almawave USA had provided Plaintiff with its portion of a 

joint letter. While admitting that it had “inadvertently miss[ed]” the correspondence, Plaintiff 

blamed its mistake on “the overwhelming amount of correspondence Defendants send daily.” 

[Docket No. 590.] The court subsequently denied Plaintiff’s request to file a motion to compel 

with respect to its dispute with Almawave USA, finding that Plaintiff had failed to show 

exceptional circumstances. [Docket No. 612.]7 

In sum, the record is replete with examples of Plaintiff’s unwillingness or inability to 

comply with court-ordered procedures regarding discovery dispute resolution, and in particular, 

the requirement that the parties meet and confer in good faith before seeking court intervention. 

Fact discovery is long over. In light of its repeated failures to comply with the court’s Standing 

Order and timely move to compel, Plaintiff may not belatedly challenge the sufficiency of the 

Almawave Defendants’ discovery responses or seek sanctions based on the same alleged 

deficiencies. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for Rule 16 sanctions is denied. However, the 

Italian Almawave Defendants shall serve amended discovery responses within two weeks of the 

date of this order that comport with the representations that they have made to Plaintiff and the 

court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 27, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

 

7

 The court notes that although many of Plaintiff’s requests to file ex parte discovery letters were 

denied for failure to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting such an approach, nothing 

prevented Plaintiff from complying with the rules and filing joint discovery letters addressing its 

disputes. Plaintiff failed to do so.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 964 Filed 12/27/16 Page 13 of 13