Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00355/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00355-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham 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

BAUSCH HEALTH US, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ECI PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:18-cv-00355-RS (KAW)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE 

1/9/2020 JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER 

UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 144, 144-3

On January 9, 2020, the parties filed a joint letter concerning the adequacy of Defendant’s 

responses to certain written discovery. (Mot. to File Under Seal, Dkt. No. 144; Redacted Joint 

Letter, Dkt. No. 144-3.) Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendant has not fully produced 

documents or conducted an adequate search of all custodians, has improperly narrowed the time 

period, and has not produced documents as they are stored in the ordinary course of business. 

(Joint Letter at 1-2.) The case was referred to the undersigned for discovery on January 15, 2020.

The Court is unable to resolve the disputes concerning all requests for production of 

documents, because the parties have not clearly identified or addressed specific requests nor have 

they provided the Court with the allegedly deficient responses. 

Notwithstanding, upon a cursory review, Plaintiff’s position that Defendant must turn over 

all documents in its possession created by Mr. Himanshu Sud is well taken even though he is a 

contractor rather than an employee. It is irrelevant that Plaintiff has separately subpoenaed Mr. 

Sud and his employer for all documents in their possession. 

Accordingly, the motion to file under seal is DENIED as moot, and the parties are ordered 

to meet and confer in an attempt to resolve the pending dispute without court intervention. In so 

doing, they shall consider the Northern District’s Guidelines for the Discovery of Electronically 

Case 3:18-cv-00355-RS Document 153 Filed 01/21/20 Page 1 of 2
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

Stored Information and ESI checklist (available at http://cand.uscourts.gov/eDiscoveryGuidelines) 

during their meet and confer efforts. If those efforts fail to fully resolve all issues of contention, 

the parties shall jointly write and file a letter outlining any remaining disputes in the format 

outlined in the Court’s Standing Order: 

A. Request No. 3 (or Issue #1)

[Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.]

Plaintiff’s Position

[Plaintiff’s position outlining why Defendant’s response or position is 

deficient and the relief requested.]

Defendant’s Position

[Defendant’s rationale as to how they have fully responded to the request, 

etc.]

B. Request No. 4 (or Issue #2)

[Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.]

Plaintiff’s Position

[Plaintiff’s position outlining why Defendant’s response or position is 

deficient and the relief requested.]

Defendant’s Position

[Defendant’s rationale as to how they have fully responded to the request, 

etc.]

(See Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 13.) Compliance with the format provided will 

facilitate the Court’s resolution of any remaining disputes, as the parties will be addressing the 

same issues. Additionally, for each disputed request, the parties should address Rule 26’s 

proportionality requirement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2020

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-00355-RS Document 153 Filed 01/21/20 Page 2 of 2