Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc.

Background

The court held a discovery status conference on July 2, 2024, concerning several pending disputes between Nicky Laatz and Zazzle, Inc., and other discovery-related matters.

Interrogatories

For Ms. Laatz’s Interrogatories Nos. 5–12 and 14, the court ordered Zazzle to serve amended responses to Nos. 5, 8–12, and 14. The amended response to No. 8 must state the number of people who published at least one design on Zazzle’s website while the disputed font was available in Zazzle’s design tool. The amended response to No. 9 must state the number of people who had shops on Zazzle’s website during that period. Zazzle did not have to amend its responses to Nos. 6 and 7 because the court found those requests sought information that was neither relevant to a claim or defense nor proportionate to the needs of the case. The amended responses were due July 3, 2024.

Requests for production

For Requests for Production (RFPs) Nos. 1 and 2, the court accepted Zazzle’s representation that it had produced all responsive documents. The court held that requests for all images and web pages depicting designs using the disputed font, all transaction records for those designs, and server logs showing selection or use of the font did not clearly fall within those requests and were not described with the reasonable particularity required by Rule 34. Zazzle therefore did not have to produce those additional documents.

For RFP No. 32, Zazzle had to investigate whether computer or system records showed its downloading of the disputed-font software after purchasing a license on Creative Market’s website and its installation of that software on Zazzle’s systems. If such records existed, Zazzle had to produce them, along with other responsive documents such as related emails that Zazzle represented it had already produced.

For RFPs Nos. 34–40, Zazzle had to investigate whether it maintained data that could be queried to obtain the requested information and report the investigation’s results to Ms. Laatz’s counsel by July 12, 2024. For RFPs Nos. 41 and 42, the court accepted Zazzle’s representation that it had produced documents responsive to the full scope of those requests. To the extent Ms. Laatz sought all images and web pages depicting designs using the disputed font, Zazzle did not have to produce those additional documents if it had already produced documents sufficient to show how it used the font software on or in connection with its website and online design tools. Zazzle did not have to produce documents responsive to RFPs Nos. 53 and 54 because the court found those requests sought information that was neither relevant nor proportionate.

For RFP No. 26, Zazzle had to produce all non-privileged documents, including communications, reflecting its decision to replace the disputed font, or part of it, with the Morgana font, including the reasons for selecting Morgana. Zazzle did not have to produce all documents about every font it considered as a possible replacement. For RFPs Nos. 31 and 43, the parties had to confer about whether Zazzle could produce font-related licenses without undue burden. Zazzle did not have to produce all documents and communications concerning other licenses. The parties had resolved the dispute concerning RFP No. 46. Zazzle did not have to separately produce documents responsive to RFPs Nos. 49–52 because those requests concerned licenses for fonts covered by Interrogatories Nos. 6 and 7, which Zazzle was not required to amend.

Privilege log and redactions

The court denied Ms. Laatz’s requested relief concerning Zazzle’s privilege log, privilege claims, and privilege redactions without prejudice because the disputes could not be resolved through the court’s ordinary expedited discovery procedures. The court directed Zazzle to review its privilege log and, at a minimum, ensure that each entry describing an attachment clearly identified the attorney involved in the communication or work product. The parties had to confer about whether the log accurately described individual communications within email threads, whether the court should review selected entries privately, a briefing schedule for any remaining privilege disputes, and other efficient procedures. They were required to report the results of that conference.

Depositions

The court stated that Ms. Laatz had taken one deposition and sought additional depositions of nine named witnesses and four Zazzle representatives under Rule 30(b)(6), which governs depositions of an organization through designated representatives. Depending on how the depositions were counted, taking all of them could exceed Rule 30’s 10-deposition limit by at least one and possibly four depositions. The court explained how the four organizational representatives would be counted based on their testimony time. Without the parties’ agreement, Ms. Laatz could not exceed 10 depositions without court permission based on a particularized need. The parties had to submit a joint discovery-dispute letter if she sought permission for additional depositions. Zazzle’s objections to depositions of Jeff Beaver, Pete Hottelet, and Irena Paschenko also had to be presented in a joint discovery-dispute letter.

The court stated that Zazzle had taken no depositions and sought depositions of Nicky Laatz, John Laatz, two Brightbox Collective representatives, two Nick Laatz Creations UK representatives, and Stephen Steinberg. Ms. Laatz did not object to the depositions other than over scheduling, but Ms. Laatz and Mr. Steinberg objected to the deposition of Mr. Steinberg, who was litigation counsel. The parties had to present that dispute in a joint discovery-dispute letter. Except for Katrina Liu, Jeff Beaver, and Stephen Steinberg, the parties had identified deposition dates on or before the August 8, 2024 fact-discovery deadline for witnesses without a substantive objection. The parties had to confer immediately about those dates and report them by July 8, 2024, at 5:00 p.m.

Other discovery matters and deadlines

No dispute remained concerning Zazzle’s responses to Ms. Laatz’s Requests for Admission Nos. 302–358. Zazzle had to serve amended responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 259–270, 276, 301, 359–376, 391–399, and 410–428 by July 10, 2024.

The court stated that, based on its rulings about information in Zazzle’s possession concerning designers, designs, orders, and the servers on which Zazzle downloaded or installed the disputed-font software, a physical inspection of Zazzle’s computer or system might be unnecessary. The court did not resolve that issue because it lacked sufficient information. Ms. Laatz had to investigate whether all documents responsive to Zazzle’s requests concerning her social-media content had been collected and produced, and report the results to Zazzle’s counsel by July 12, 2024. The court stated that no dispute appeared to remain concerning RFPs Nos. 14–16 and 22–24 about Ms. Laatz’s creation of the disputed font. The court declined to modify its expedited discovery procedures or impose additional procedures.

Disposition

Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi ordered the discovery actions and deadlines described above, denied Ms. Laatz’s privilege-log relief without prejudice, and required joint status reports by July 8 and July 15, 2024, concerning deposition scheduling and other specified matters. The order was a discovery ruling and did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.