Wave Neuroscience, Inc. v. PeakLogic, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
The court reviewed three motions to compel discovery responses filed by Plaintiff Wave Neuroscience against Defendants PeakLogic and Kevin T. Murphy. The court denied the motions in part, granted them in part, and denied the request for sanctions, ordering the defendants to serve amended responses and produce documents by October 6, 2023.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories (Set Two) (Doc. No. 154)“As to Plaintiff’s Motion regarding its Interrogatories (Set Two) (Doc. No. 154), the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion in its entirety and specifically as to Interrogatory Nos. 12 – 16.” | unsure The order does not provide the specific factual or legal basis for denying the motion to compel interrogatory responses, only stating the result. Without the underlying arguments or the court's analysis of the objections, it is impossible to determine if the denial was legally correct. |
Denial as Moot of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Interrogatory Nos. 14 and 15“To that end, with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 14 and 15, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion, as Defendants already agreed to produce amended responses.” | agree with court Denying a motion as moot when the opposing party has agreed to provide the requested discovery is a standard and appropriate procedural mechanism to resolve the dispute without further litigation. |
Ordering Defendants to serve amended responses to Interrogatory Nos. 14 and 15 by October 6, 2023“In accordance with Defendants’ representation, the Court ORDERS Defendants to serve their amended responses to Interrogatory Nos. 14 and 15 no later than Friday, October 6, 2023.” | agree with court The court is enforcing the parties' agreement to produce the documents, which is within its authority to manage the case. |
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) (Doc. No. 155) as to RFP Nos. 1-7, 12, and 13“As to Plaintiff’s Motion regarding its Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) (Doc. No. 155), the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion as to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 1 – 7, 12, and 13...” | unsure The order does not explain why these specific requests were denied. It is unclear whether the objections were valid or if the requests were overly broad, but the lack of reasoning prevents a definitive assessment of correctness. |
Granting of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) (Doc. No. 155) as to RFP Nos. 8-10 and 14“...and GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion as to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 8 – 10 and 14.” | unsure The order does not explain why these specific requests were granted. It is unclear if the objections were overbroad or if the documents were clearly relevant and proportional, but the lack of reasoning prevents a definitive assessment of correctness. |
Ordering Defendants to serve amended responses to RFP Nos. 8-10 and 14 by October 6, 2023“The Court ORDERS Defendants to serve their amended responses to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 8 – 10 and 14 no later than Friday, October 6, 2023.” | agree with court The court is enforcing its grant of the motion to compel, which is a standard remedial action. |
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) (Doc. No. 156) as to RFP Nos. 16-19 and 21“As to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel regarding its Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) (Doc. No. 156), the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion as to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 16 – 19 and 21...” | unsure The order does not explain why these specific requests were denied. It is unclear whether the objections were valid or if the requests were overly broad, but the lack of reasoning prevents a definitive assessment of correctness. |
Denial as Moot of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel RFP Nos. 18, 19, and 21“...and specifically DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion as to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 18, 19, and 21, given Defendants’ agreement to produce responsive documents.” | agree with court Denying a motion as moot when the opposing party has agreed to provide the requested discovery is a standard and appropriate procedural mechanism to resolve the dispute without further litigation. |
Ordering Defendants to serve document production for RFP Nos. 18, 19, and 21 by October 6, 2023“Consistent with Defendants’ representation as to the latter category of document requests, the Court ORDERS Defendants to serve their document production responsive to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 18, 19, and 21 no later than Friday, October 6, 2023.” | agree with court The court is enforcing the parties' agreement to produce the documents, which is within its authority to manage the case. |
Granting of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) (Doc. No. 156) as to RFP Nos. 20, and 22-24“As to Plaintiff’s remaining document requests, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion as to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 20, and 22 – 24...” | unsure The order does not explain why these specific requests were granted. It is unclear if the objections were overbroad or if the documents were clearly relevant and proportional, but the lack of reasoning prevents a definitive assessment of correctness. |
Ordering Defendants to produce documents for RFP Nos. 20, and 22-24 by October 6, 2023“...and ORDERS Defendants to produce documents responsive to those requests no later than Friday, October 6, 2023.” | agree with court The court is enforcing its grant of the motion to compel, which is a standard remedial action. |
Denial of Plaintiff's request for sanctions“Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendants as to the three motions to compel is denied at this time. The Court finds that most of Defendants’ responses and positions were substantially justified.” | agree with court The court applied the 'substantially justified' standard, which is the correct standard for Rule 37 sanctions. The finding that the positions were substantially justified, combined with the defendant's subsequent compliance, supports the denial of sanctions at this time. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is a discovery management order that resolves specific disputes. It correctly applies the 'substantially justified' standard for sanctions and cites a relevant district court case for the proposition that a party cannot unilaterally stop discovery based on a pending motion for summary judgment. However, the order provides no reasoning for the specific grants and denials of the motions to compel, making it impossible to assess the legal correctness of those individual rulings. It is a 'sound with gaps' order because it reaches a defensible result on sanctions but skips the analysis for the underlying discovery disputes.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WAVE NEUROSCIENCE, INC., Case No.: 21-CV-1330-CAB-SBC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES (DOC. 14 PEAKLOGIC, INC. and KEVIN T. NOS. 154, 155, 156) MURPHY, M.D., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 On July 17, 2023, the Parties notified this Court of the three discovery disputes that 21 are the subject of this Court’s instant Order. On August 7, 2023, the Court issued an Order 22 Setting Briefing Schedule Regarding the Discovery Disputes. (Doc. No. 135.) Pursuant to 23 that Order, on August 17, 2023, Plaintiff timely filed a (1) Motion to Compel Further 24 Responses to Interrogatories (Set Two); (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to 25 Requests for Production of Documents (Set One); and (3) Motion to Compel Further 26 Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) (collectively, “Motions to 27 Compel” or “Motions”). (Doc. Nos. 154, 155, 156.) Defendants timely opposed each of 28 Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel on September 1, 2023. (Doc. Nos. 157, 158, 159.) Plaintiff 1 timely replied to each of Defendants’ Oppositions on September 8, 2023. (Doc. Nos. 161, 2 162, 163.) Pursuant to its September 5, 2023, Order (Doc. No. 160), the Court convened a 3 hearing on Plaintiff’s three Motions on September 29, 2023, at 1:00 p.m., provided its 4 tentative ruling on the record, and thereafter heard oral argument from the Parties. Having 5 done so, the Court ORDERS as follows: 6 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories (Set Two) 7 8 As to Plaintiff’s Motion regarding its Interrogatories (Set Two) (Doc. No. 154), the 9 Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion in its entirety and specifically as to Interrogatory Nos. 10 12 – 16. To that end, with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 14 and 15, the Court DENIES AS 11 MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion, as Defendants already agreed to produce amended responses. 12 In accordance with Defendants’ representation, the Court ORDERS Defendants to serve 13 their amended responses to Interrogatory Nos. 14 and 15 no later than Friday, October 14 6, 2023. 15 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) 16 17 As to Plaintiff’s Motion regarding its Requests for Production of Documents (Set 18 One) (Doc. No. 155), the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion as to Requests for Production 19 of Documents Nos. 1 – 7, 12, and 13, and GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion as to Requests for 20 Production of Documents Nos. 8 – 10 and 14. The Court ORDERS Defendants to serve 21 their amended responses to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 8 – 10 and 14 no 22 later than Friday, October 6, 2023. 23 3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) 24 25 As to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel regarding its Requests for Production of 26 Documents (Set Two) (Doc. No. 156), the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion as to Requests 27 for Production of Documents Nos. 16 – 19 and 21 and specifically DENIES AS MOOT 28 Plaintiff’s Motion as to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 18, 19, and 21, given 1 Defendants’ agreement to produce responsive documents. Consistent with Defendants’ 2 representation as to the latter category of document requests, the Court ORDERS 3 Defendants to serve their document production responsive to Requests for Production of 4 Documents Nos. 18, 19, and 21 no later than Friday, October 6, 2023. As to Plaintiff’s 5 remaining document requests, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion as to Requests for 6 Production of Documents Nos. 20, and 22 – 24 and ORDERS Defendants to produce 7 documents responsive to those requests no later than Friday, October 6, 2023. 8 As noted at the hearing on September 29, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendant shall each 9 provide a short status update to the Court by email to Chambers’ email address at 10 efile_chu@casd.uscourts.gov no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 13, 2023.1 11 Upon its review and consideration of the Parties’ respective status updates, the Court shall 12 / / / 13 / / / 14 15 16 1 Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendants as to the three motions to compel 17 is denied at this time. The Court finds that most of Defendants’ responses and positions were substantially justified. 18 However, the Court expressed its concern during the September 29, 2023 hearing 19 that a party may not unilaterally decide to withhold information simply because they believe that they may be later dismissed from the case. Centerline Housing Partnership I, 20 L.P. v. Palm Communities, 2021 WL 2493251 at *2-4 (C.D. Cal. 2021). Concerns about 21 the burdensome nature of discovery could have been addressed through a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of a pending motion for summary judgment. However, such 22 stays are often denied, because delaying or prolonging discovery can create unnecessary 23 litigation expenses and case-management problems. Id. Defendant should not have made the unilateral decision to withhold producing 24 documents due to the mere fact of a pending and potentially dispositive motion that could 25 have dismissed Defendant from the case. However, the Court declines to impose sanctions against Defendant at this time, because Defendant did in fact produce documents following 26 the denial of its renewed motion for summary judgment, and because Defendant agreed to 27 produce additional documentation during the hearing of September 29, 2023. If necessary, the Court may re-visit the sanctions issue at a later time. 28 1 || determine what further action to take, if any.” 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: October 3, 2023 SF A.
6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 As a separate matter, the Court held a discovery conference on September 29, 2023 26 regarding Plaintiffs” non-party subpoenas for documents, issues that were raised in the parties’ joint discovery statement dated September 14, 2023. During the discovery 27 || conference, the Court made certain rulings. The Court orders the parties to provide a status 28 update on its meet and confer efforts with regard to these discovery issues during its October 13, 2023 email update to chambers.