Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03656/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03656-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LUXUL TECHNOLOGY INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NECTARLUX, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:14-cv-03656-LHK (HRL)

INTERIM ORDER RE DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE JOINT REPORT NO. 1

Re: Dkt. No. 73

In Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 1, plaintiff Luxul Technology, Inc. (“Luxul”) seeks 

an order compelling Nectarlux, LLC, JKeeney Consulting Inc., and James Keeney (collectively, 

“defendants”) to provide better copies of e-mails produced in response to plaintiff’s requests for 

production of documents. Defendants did produce copies, but plaintiff says some of them are 

missing “lines,” and others are missing attachments. Plus, although it had been requested, no 

metadata was included. And, there may have been a problem with whether the material was in 

“reasonably useful form.” The court is not told how many of the e-mails suffer these deficiencies 

(although, presumably, if metadata is missing, it is missing from all . . . whatever that number is).

Luxul says the missing information is really important. Not so, say defendants. According 

to them: The examples of missing attachments that plaintiff cited are not missing at all; and, 

plaintiff’s assertion that it looks like these e-mails were printed out and then scanned prior to 

production (presumably, a no-no) is just flat wrong. Defendants say nothing about the missing 

Case 5:14-cv-03656-LHK Document 74 Filed 01/20/16 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

metadata and give only the sketchiest explanation of how its third party vendor went about 

searching for responsive e-mails. Defendants claim that Luxul, a much bigger outfit than they are, 

is simply harassing and bullying them with irksome and unnecessary discovery. Luxul retorts that 

defendants are being shifty and are holding back what it needs to prove its case and defend against 

the counterclaim. All this lawyer talk fails to persuade the court either way. The court needs a 

better presentation of the facts.

Accordingly, the court issues this interim order:1

1. No later than 9:00 AM on Monday, January 25, Luxul will lodge with chambers 

and serve on defendants a representative sample of the deficient e-mails, each 

marked or highlighted in such a way that the court can understand what it is. 

Simultaneously, file a declaration giving the total number of e-mails with missing 

lines or attachments. Also, explain precisely why the metadata is important and 

whether that information could be limited to certain, specific e-mails or whether it 

is necessary for all of them. Finally, if it is the case, explain how and why the email production was not in reasonably usable form.

2. No later than 4:00 PM on Wednesday, January 27, defendants, at their option, may 

file a reply to the plaintiff’s submissions of January 25. In addition, they will file a 

declaration(s) explaining in detail the search protocol, including all search terms, 

any predictive coding used, or the like. Tell why this search approach was used 

rather than some other. Were lines or attachments eliminated from the production? 

Was metadata produced? If not, why not? Once responsive e-mails were 

identified, describe each step then taken to produce them. Why not native format? 

Were they produced in electronic form (if so, describe), or on paper? Finally, 

confirm you have produced all responsive documents, and if any were withheld on 

the basis of some objection, identify the documents and the objection.

 

1

This discovery dispute festered for many months, but only now---on the eve of the close of 

discovery---is it brought to the court for (presumably) its immediate attention. Thus, the 

compressed briefing and hearing schedule that now follows.

Case 5:14-cv-03656-LHK Document 74 Filed 01/20/16 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

3. At 3:00 PM on Friday, January 29, the court will hold a telephone conference call 

with lead counsel to discuss this matter further. The parties should arrange the 

conference through Court Call at 866-582-6878 at least 24 hours in advance.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2016

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-03656-LHK Document 74 Filed 01/20/16 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

5:14-cv-03656-LHK Notice has been electronically mailed to:

James Thomas Erickson jim@mlnariklaw.com, john@mlnariklaw.com, 

mlnariklawecfnoticescanb@gmail.com

Jamie Duitz Quient jamie.quient@procopio.com, mlf@procopio.com

John Louis Mlnarik john@mlnariklaw.com, mlnariklawecfnoticescanb@gmail.com

Kyle Geoffrey Bates kbates@schneiderwallace.com, mail@schneiderwallace.com

Melinda Mae Morton mindy.morton@procopio.com, calendaring@procopio.com, 

gail.poulos@procopio.com

Michael C McKay mmckay@schneiderwallace.com

Nina C Decker nina@mlnariklaw.com

Robert H. Sloss robert.sloss@procopio.com, calendaring@procopio.com, 

gail.poulos@procopio.com

Todd Michael Schneider tschneider@schneiderwallace.com, efilings@schneiderwallace.com

Case 5:14-cv-03656-LHK Document 74 Filed 01/20/16 Page 4 of 4