Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798-82/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 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE UNILATERAL 

DISCOVERY LETTER RE IQSYSTEM, 

INC.’S DOCUMENT PRODUCTION

Re: Dkt. No. 542

On March 30, 2016, Plaintiff Loop AI Labs Inc. filed an administrative motion for leave to 

file unilateral discovery letters, including a letter brief regarding Defendant IQSystem, Inc.’s 

(“IQS”) document production. [Docket No. 542.] Plaintiff argued that exceptional circumstances 

supported its request because IQS had refused to participate in Plaintiff’s joint discovery letter. Id. 

In its opposition, IQS stated that it had not refused to participate, and that its counsel had left 

Plaintiff’s counsel over ten messages in March 2016 in an attempt to meet and confer. [Docket 

No. 567.] The court then ordered Plaintiff to submit a 125-word statement responding to IQS’s 

representations. [Docket No. 582.]

Plaintiff timely filed its statement, in which counsel asserts that “[w]hen Loop AI returned 

counsel’s calls, they were not answered; when messages were left, there were no returned calls.” 

[Docket No. 589.] On April 11, 2016, IQS filed a response in which counsel states that she called 

Plaintiff’s counsel’s office fifteen times between March 7, 2016 and March 31, 2016 attempting to 

meet and confer, and that Plaintiff’s counsel did not return her calls. [Docket No. 596.] IQS 

attached call records which purportedly showed the fifteen outgoing calls to Plaintiff’s counsel 

and the lack of incoming calls from Plaintiff’s counsel. [Docket No. 596-1.] On April 12, 2016, 

Plaintiff filed a response to IQS’s April 11, 2016 submission in which it states it “emailed and 

called IQS’s counsel’s office, not cellphone.” [Docket No. 601.]

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 625 Filed 04/26/16 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

Given Plaintiff and IQS’s dispute about their phone contacts in March 2016, the court was 

unable to determine whether Plaintiff had shown exceptional circumstances supporting its request 

to file a unilateral discovery letter regarding IQS’s document productions. Therefore, on April 20, 

2016, the court ordered IQS to re-submit counsel’s call records reflecting her calls to Plaintiff’s 

counsel between March 7, 2016 and March 31, 2016 with an authenticating declaration. The court 

also ordered Plaintiff to submit “a sworn declaration authenticating records, i.e., phone records 

and emails that support Plaintiff’s counsel’s statement that she returned IQS’s calls and emailed 

IQS’s counsel to meet and confer from March 7, 2016 through March 31, 2016.” [Docket No. 

612.] 

The parties timely filed the requested submissions. [Docket Nos. 618-620.] IQS’s counsel 

submitted evidence supporting her assertion that she called Plaintiff’s counsel’s office numerous

times between March 7, 2016 and March 31, 2016, and that most calls lasted between three and 

four minutes because she left messages each time. Brayer Decl., April 22, 2016, ¶¶ 5-8, Ex. 1. 

Plaintiff’s evidence, however, does not substantiate its position. Plaintiff submitted evidence of 

only one telephone call to IQS’s counsel from March 7, 2016 through March 31, 2016: on March 

22, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel called IQS’s counsel’s office and left a message. Wong Decl., April 

22, 2016, ¶ 4, Ex. 1. The parties also conducted a telephonic meet and confer on March 11, 2016. 

Healy Decl., April 22, 2016, ¶ 10. Plaintiff’s counsel did not submit evidence of any emails to 

IQS during the relevant time period. 

Based on this evidence, the court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to show exceptional 

circumstances supporting its request to file a unilateral discovery letter regarding IQS’s document 

production. Contrary to Plaintiff’s representations to the court, it does not appear that IQS refused

to participate in the court’s joint letter process. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s administrative motion is 

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

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 625 Filed 04/26/16 Page 2 of 2