Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01524/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01524-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

 The joint brief erroneously refers to Rule 31-1 (b), which does not exist.

1

*E-FILED 11/29/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SYNAPSIS, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

EVERGREEN DATA SYSTEMS, INC. ET AL.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 05-1524 JF

ORDER RE DISCOVERY

DISPUTE

Counter-defendant William Akel, appearing in pro se, and defendant and counter-claimant

Evergreen Data Systems, Inc. have submitted a joint brief seeking resolution of a discovery dispute

pending between them. The parties invoke Local Civil Rule 37-1 (b)1

, which is designed to permit

parties to obtain speedy and cost-effective resolutions of disputes that arise during the course of

discovery “events.” The rule is primarily intended for use in circumstances where proceedings are

actually in progress, such as depositions or situations where documents or other tangible things are

presented for inspection, rather than in disputes regarding written discovery or conventional

document productions where copies of responsive documents are simply mailed by the producing

party. In this instance, however, the Court, through its clerk, advised the parties that they would be

permitted to present this dispute informally, without regard to the applicability or inapplicability of

Rule 37-1, and that the Court would either rule on the basis of the joint submission or require the

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 195 Filed 11/29/06 Page 1 of 4
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

parties to proceed by formal motion practice.

Having reviewed the parties’ joint brief, the Court concludes that it is not in a position to

determine conclusively the propriety of the disputed requests without a more complete record. In

the interests of facilitating a possible resolution between the parties without further Court

intervention, however, the Court notes the following principles. Under Rule 26 of the Rules of

Federal Procedure, a party may seek discovery from any person, as long as the discovery “is relevant

to the claim or defense of any party.” There is no limitation that a party need only answer discovery

that is directed at claims alleged specifically by or against that party. The responding party, of

course, need only respond based on information and documents within his or her own possession,

custody, or control, and is not expected to respond on behalf of some other party. If a responding

party actually has no knowledge or documents regarding other claims in the litigation, he or she may

so state, but that is not a basis for objecting to the requests or refusing to respond at all.

Requests for admissions potentially raise somewhat different issues. To begin with, requests

for admissions are not ordinarily a tool for discovering information. Rather, their purpose is “to

expedite trial by establishing certain material facts as true and thus narrowing the range of issues for

trial.” Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1981). Even if one

party were to respond to a request for admission with an unqualified admission, that would not be

binding on other parties to the litigation. Thus, depending on the particular wording of a request for

admission and the nature of the claims, it might be inappropriate to ask one party to admit or deny a

matter that related only to claims between other parties.

Finally, although corporate documents could be said to be within the “control” of corporate

officers, requesting an officer to produce such documents ordinarily would be inappropriate where

the corporation is also a party, except to the extent that the individual is being asked to produce any

responsive documents that he or she may have in his or her personal possession.

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 195 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 4
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

The parties are directed to engage in further meet and confer discussions with these

principles in mind. In the event they are unable to resolve their disputes, further Court action may

be sought by noticed motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 195 Filed 11/29/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

William Shibly Akel wmakel@counterstrike.com

Daniel C. DeCarlo decarlo@lbbslaw.com, kkim@lbbslaw.com; pink@lbbslaw.com;

creyes@lbbslaw.com

Jonathan S. Pink pink@lbbslaw.com, creyes@lbbslaw.com

Michael Navid Radparvar radparvar@lbbslaw.com,

Jeffrey F. Sax jsax@saxlaw.net

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 11/28/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 195 Filed 11/29/06 Page 4 of 4