Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02401/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02401-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cengage Learning, Inc.
Plaintiff
Davis Textbooks
Defendant
Ali Sherali
Defendant
Shahnawaz Sherali
Defendant

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 

1

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CENGAGE LEARNING, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DAVIS TEXTBOOKS, ALI SHERALI, 

and SHAHNAWAZ SHERALI, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-2401 TLN AC 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery responses (ECF No. 60) came on for 

hearing on September 14, 2016. Naomi Jane Gray appeared telephonically on behalf of plaintiff, 

and Galen Gentry appeared on behalf of defendants. For the reasons now explained, the motion 

will be granted. 

BACKGROUND 

 Cengage, a textbook publisher, sues defendants for copyright infringement, trademark 

infringement, trademark counterfeiting, and breach of contract. See ECF No. 1 (Complaint). 

Defendants are sellers of college textbooks, who own and operate a brick-and-mortar bookstore 

and an online storefront. In 2012, after plaintiff and other publishers accused defendants of 

selling counterfeit copies of their copyrighted works, the parties entered into a settlement 

agreement. Plaintiff alleges in the present action that defendants have continued to sell 

Case 2:15-cv-02401-TLN-AC Document 71 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 5
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 

2

counterfeit copies of its copyrighted textbooks, and have violated the term of the settlement 

agreement that prohibited defendants from distributing counterfeit textbooks and required them to 

cooperate with plaintiff in the investigation of counterfeiting. 

 By order filed September 2, 2016, ECF No. 64, the court granted defendant’s motion to 

compel further responses to various interrogatories, and addressed various other discovery 

matters. 

STANDARDS GOVERNING MOTION TO COMPEL 

 The scope of discovery under the Federal Rules is broad. Discovery may be obtained as 

to “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to 

the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action . . . and 

whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. (“Rule”) 26(b)(1). “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in 

evidence to be discoverable.” Id. “Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact 

more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in 

determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. 

 Where a party fails to produce documents requested under Rule 34, the party seeking 

discovery may move for compelled disclosure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. “The party seeking to compel 

discovery has the burden of establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy requirements of 

Rule 26(b)(1). The party opposing discovery then has the burden of showing that the discovery 

should be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, explaining or supporting its objections.” See 

Bryant v. Ochoa, 2009 WL 1390794 at * 1, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42339 at *3 (S.D. Cal. 2009). 

The party opposing discovery is “required to carry a heavy burden of showing” why discovery 

should be denied. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.1975). General or 

boilerplate objections, e.g., those based on broad assertions of vagueness, overbreadth or 

burdensomeness, are improper and do not meet this standard, especially when a party fails to 

submit any evidentiary declarations supporting such objections. See Farber & Partners, Inc. v. 

Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 188 (C.D. Cal. 2006). Exclusive reliance on such boilerplate objections 

//// 

Case 2:15-cv-02401-TLN-AC Document 71 Filed 09/16/16 Page 2 of 5
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 

3

waives any legitimate objection that could have been raised. Gorrel v. Sneath, 292 F.R.D. 629, 

634-635 (E.D. Cal. 2013). 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

 Plaintiff seeks compelled production of documents that fall into three categories: (1) 

documents regarding instances in which defendants sold suspected or alleged counterfeit 

textbooks, other than the single instance alleged with specificity in the complaint, from January 1, 

2013 to the present; (2) documents regarding other textbooks purchased by defendants from 

known or suspected counterfeit suppliers; and (3) documents concerning defendants’ corporate 

structure and financial condition. 

I. Requests for Production 1 and 10 

Requests for Production (“RFPs”) 1 and 10 seek information about instances since the 

settlement agreement was entered when defendants sold textbooks that were suspected or alleged 

by others to be counterfeit. Defendants argue that the requests seek irrelevant information 

because the Complaint alleges the sale of a single counterfeit title. They also object on grounds 

the requests are vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and generally 

unauthorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Plaintiff contends that the relevance objection is waived because it was not stated in the 

original responses to the RFPs. Defendants are correct, however, that the propounding party has 

the initial burden to establish relevance on a motion to compel. See Bryant v. Ochoa, supra. 

Plaintiff has done so here. First, the Complaint’s allegation of a single counterfeit title is 

expressly illustrative. See ECF No. 1 at 5 (“Cengage has duly registered its copyright in the work 

described below, among others”) (emphasis added); see also id. at 7 (alleging defendants have 

distributed “counterfeit copies of Cengage’s [unspecified] Authentic Work bearing Cengage’s 

Marks (hereinafter “Pirated Books”). These allegations suggest that defendant’s infringement 

extends beyond the one specified title, and therefore supports discovery into the extent of 

infringement. Second, the existence of additional allegations of infringement, or business 

dealings by defendants with suspected counterfeit suppliers, is relevant to the willfulness of their 

conduct vis-à-vis plaintiff, and therefore to the proper measure of statutory damages. Third, 

Case 2:15-cv-02401-TLN-AC Document 71 Filed 09/16/16 Page 3 of 5
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 

4

defendants’ conduct in response to indications or allegations of counterfeiting is relevant to the 

breach of contract claim. 

Plaintiff having demonstrated relevance, it is defendant’s “heavy burden” to show why 

discovery should be denied. Blankenship, 519 F.2d at 429. Defendants’ general, boilerplate 

objections fail to meet that burden. See Farber & Partners 234 F.R.D. at 188 (C.D. Cal. 2006); 

Gorrel, 292 F.R.D. at 634-635. The objections are accordingly overruled as inadequately 

supported. 

II. Requests for Production 4, 5, 6, and 7 

 These Requests all seek information about transactions between defendants and their 

suppliers that potentially involve counterfeit publications. Plaintiff wants to identify the 

textbooks that defendants have purchased from the “Counterfeit Suppliers” (RFP No. 4), the 

dispositions (sale, return, etc.) of those books (RFP No. 5), related transaction details (RFP No. 

6), and communications with customers to whom defendants sold such books (RFP No. 7). 

Defendants argue that the requests seek information that is irrelevant because beyond the scope of 

plaintiff’s claims involving a single counterfeit title. They also object on grounds the requests are 

vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and generally unauthorized by the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 For the same reasons explained above in relation to RFPs 1 and 10, plaintiff has 

sufficiently demonstrated relevance. For the same reasons explained above in relation to RFPs 1 

and 10, defendants’ boilerplate objections are overruled as inadequately supported. 

III. Requests for Production 15 and 16 

 These Requests seek documents relating to defendants’ corporate structure, governance, 

ownership, assets, revenue and related items. In addition to stating boilerplate objections, 

defendants stated in their responses to these RFPs that they were “not in possession of any 

responsive documents.” At hearing on the motion, counsel for defendants indicated that such 

representation had been made in error. 

 Plaintiff has adequately explained the relevance of these documents in terms of issues 

related to damages, and in relation to defendant’s knowledge of possible counterfeiting, 

Case 2:15-cv-02401-TLN-AC Document 71 Filed 09/16/16 Page 4 of 5
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 

5

compliance with the settlement agreement, etc. Defendant’s boilerplate objections being 

categorically inadequate, they are overruled. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons explained above, plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents 

(ECF No. 60) is GRANTED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 16, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-02401-TLN-AC Document 71 Filed 09/16/16 Page 5 of 5