Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798-83/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 ON JOINT DISCOVERY 

LETTER RE SUBPOENA TO RUSSELL 

REYNOLDS ASSOCIATES

Re: Dkt. No. 338

Plaintiff Loop AI Labs Inc. (“Loop”) and third party Russell Reynolds Associates Inc. 

(“RRA”) filed a joint letter in which Plaintiff moves to enforce the court’s September 18, 2015 

order directing RRA to produce documents in response to Plaintiff’s subpoena and/or moves for 

contempt. [Docket No. 338 (Joint Letter).] The court finds this matter suitable for resolution 

without further oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is 

granted in part and denied in part.

I. DISCUSSION

A. RRA’s Supplemental Production of Documents

On September 18, 2015, the court issued an order regarding RRA’s production of 

documents in response to Plaintiff’s subpoena. [Docket No. 203.] In its order, the court adopted 

RRA’s proposal to narrow the scope of each of the 13 categories of documents demanded in the 

subpoena to “documents that relate to Loop and Anna Gatti (separately and jointly), and the search 

[RRA] performed for the position at Almawave that resulted in the hire by Almawave of Anna 

Gatti,” concluding that those documents would be “relevant to the claims at issue in this action.” 

Id. at 11 (internal citation omitted). The court noted that the evidence submitted by Plaintiff in 

support of its position seeking a broader scope of documents from RRA did not “support 

Plaintiff’s position that documents related to RRA’s contact with any of the Defendants are 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 631 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 4
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

relevant, regardless of whether they relate to Gatti, Plaintiff, or any of the issues in this action.” 

Id. RRA interpreted the court’s order to mean that “RRA would produce documents that related to 

either Anna Gatti or Loop or both, in relation to the Almawave/Gatti search.” Joint Letter at 2 

(emphasis in original). RRA made a supplemental production of documents to Plaintiff on 

October 12, 2015.

Plaintiff challenges RRA’s interpretation of the September 18, 2015 order and the 

sufficiency of its document production. Plaintiff argues that the court ordered RRA to produce all 

documents related to Gatti, regardless of whether they related to the Almawave/Gatti search, and 

challenges RRA’s decision to withhold approximately 1,400 documents as outside the scope of the 

subpoena. As noted, the court specifically denied Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling RRA 

to produce all documents related to Gatti in its September 18, 2015 order. The court declines to 

revisit that decision and denies Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling RRA to produce 

additional documents.

It is worth noting that RRA offered to re-review the 1,400 withheld documents that hit on 

the search term “Gatti” if Plaintiff provided a narrowly-tailored date range, specific search terms 

(including specific names of individuals), and a description of relevant subject matters. RRA 

states that Plaintiff “summarily dismissed” RRA’s offer. Joint Letter at 2. Plaintiff does not 

dispute this characterization. As has been true of many of the senseless discovery battles in this 

case, had Plaintiff simply engaged with RRA’s offer, Plaintiff undoubtedly could have obtained 

more documents and facts. Plaintiff’s refusal amounts to yet another missed opportunity to 

advance the basic goal of discovery.

B. Redactions 

Plaintiff next challenges RRA’s document redactions. RRA states that it redacted 

“irrelevant and private information” about RRA clients and individual candidates that it noted on a 

privilege log. It explains that with the exception of two documents, RRA redacted only the names 

and contact information of individuals unrelated to this litigation. 

As RRA notes, “[f]ederal courts ordinarily recognize a constitutionally-based right of 

privacy that can be raised in response to discovery requests.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 631 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 4
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

603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (citations omitted). “Resolution of a privacy objection or request for a 

protective order requires a balancing of the need for the information sought against the privacy 

right asserted.” Id. (citations omitted); see also Artis v. Deere & Co., 276 F.RD. 348, 352 (N.D. 

Cal. 2011) (“[w]hen the constitutional right of privacy is involved, ‘the party seeking discovery 

must demonstrate a compelling need for discovery, and that compelling need must be so strong as 

to outweigh the privacy right when these two competing interests are carefully balanced.’” 

(citation omitted)). Plaintiff offers no theory of relevance of the names and contact information of 

unrelated individuals. Since Plaintiff has not demonstrated a “compelling need” for this 

information, the court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel RRA to produce the full, unredacted 

documents containing unrelated third parties’ names and contact information.

As to the remaining two redacted documents, RRA states that the first document is “a 

report containing highly confidential information regarding each of RRA’s ‘searches’, including 

client data, salary information, and candidate information,” and that it produced the document in 

redacted form because it only contains a single entry related to the Gatti/Almawave search. RRA

states that the redacted information is unrelated to the parties in this case and contains private 

information about RRA, its candidates, and its clients. Plaintiff offers no argument about why it 

needs the full, unredacted document, or how the unredacted information is even remotely relevant 

to its claims. Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel RRA to produce the 

unredacted RRA report. 

The second document is an email related to a company called “GTech.” RRA states that it 

redacted a single paragraph of the email discussing GTech, which “to RRA’s knowledge is 

unrelated to the instant matter.” Joint Letter at 4. The court acknowledges that it is difficult for 

Plaintiff to explain the relevance of the redacted portion of the email in the absence of more 

information about the email. The court notes that there is a protective order in place in this case 

that contains a provision permitting producing parties to designate documents as “highly 

confidential—attorneys’ eyes only,” as well as a procedure by which a party may challenge 

confidentiality designations. [Docket No. 230.] Accordingly, the court orders RRA to produce 

the full, unredacted GTech email to Plaintiff, subject to an appropriate designation under the

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 631 Filed 04/29/16 Page 3 of 4
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

protective order. RRA shall produce the GTech email within seven days of the date of this order.

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part and denied in 

part.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 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 631 Filed 04/29/16 Page 4 of 4