Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02560/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02560-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Creative Mobile Technologies, LLC
Counter-defendant
Flywheel Software, Inc.
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

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

CREATIVE MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES, 

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLYWHEEL SOFTWARE, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02560-SI 

ORDER RE: FIRST DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 53, 54, 56

Plaintiff has filed a discovery dispute letter with the Court regarding the production of 

documents and searches of custodian files. Dkt. No. 53. Although the parties cannot agree 

whether defendant received notice from plaintiff regarding the filing of the discovery dispute 

letter, plaintiff did not object to defendant’s filing a response to the discovery dispute letter, which 

defendant filed on January 13, 2017. See Dkt. Nos. 55, 56. This is the first discovery dispute in 

this case.

Plaintiff asks the Court to order defendant to complete document production by January 

27, 2017. Plaintiff states that it served its first set of requests for production (“RFPs”) on 

September 12, 2016, and that, after an extension, defendant’s responses were due on October 21, 

2016. Dkt. No. 53 at 1. In response, defendant does not dispute the deadlines that plaintiff 

summarized in its discovery dispute letter. Defendant states that it made an initial production on 

October 31, 2016, and a supplemental production on December 19, 2016. Dkt. No. 56 at 1. The 

parties met and conferred on December 20, 2016. Id. Defendant acknowledges that production 

still remains outstanding but offers no proposed deadline for when it can feasibly complete 

production, offers no reason why it missed the October 21, 2016 deadline, and offers no reason 

(other than “the broad nature of the requests and the number of custodians”) why it cannot meet a 

Case 3:16-cv-02560-SI Document 57 Filed 01/17/17 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

January 27, 2017 deadline. See id. at 1-2. The parties have a private mediation scheduled for 

March 9, 2017, and plaintiff wishes to take depositions in advance of mediation. See Dkt. No. 35 

at 2; Dkt. No. 53 at 1.

Plaintiff also requests that the Court order defendant to search all of plaintiff’s proposed 

custodians for documents responsive to plaintiff’s document request. Dkt. No. 53 at 2. In 

response, defendant said that it agrees to search the custodians named in plaintiff’s discovery letter 

and that it is in the process of conducting this search.1 Dkt. No. 56 at 2. Thus, it appears the 

dispute regarding custodians is now moot.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS IN PART plaintiff’s request. Defendant shall produce all 

responsive documents no later than February 10, 2017. Defendant shall cooperate with plaintiff

to schedule depositions to occur between that date and the March 9, 2017 mediation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2017

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

 

1

Plaintiff has issued six RFPs “relating to payment processing and Flywheel’s pleadings 

and Interrogatory responses, [and] Flywheel refuses to search in any custodian files and refuses to 

explain where, if not from these custodian files, responsive documents will come from.” Dkt. No. 

53 at 2. Defendant says that it will produce responsive documents, but that these documents are 

not contained in custodian files. Dkt. No. 56 at 2. 

Case 3:16-cv-02560-SI Document 57 Filed 01/17/17 Page 2 of 2