Pop Top Corp v. Rakuten Kobo Inc.

Background

The court had previously denied Judgment Debtor Rohit Chandra’s motion to quash post-judgment discovery requested by Rakuten Kobo Inc. Chandra then filed a motion to vacate that ruling. The court treated the motion as a motion for reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9. Chandra also filed a motion seeking a formal admonishment of Kobo’s counsel for pursuing discovery while the reconsideration motion was pending. The court decided both matters based on the written filings without oral argument.

Citations and warning

Before addressing the motions, the court discussed several citations in Chandra’s filings that did not appear to correspond to actual cases or opinions. The court stated that Chandra apparently used an artificial-intelligence tool for legal research and emphasized that self-represented litigants must still verify that their legal authorities are accurate and support their arguments. The court did not impose sanctions at that time, but warned that citing nonexistent cases or citing real cases for unsupported propositions could result in sanctions, including monetary sanctions.

Motion for reconsideration

Civil Local Rule 7-9 permits reconsideration of an interlocutory order when the moving party acts diligently and shows a material change in facts or law, newly emerged material facts or a change in law, or a manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. The rule also bars simply repeating arguments previously made.

The court concluded that Chandra had not identified a valid basis to revisit the earlier order. First, he offered no evidence supporting his claim that Kobo’s counsel falsely represented that the earlier discovery concerned Pop Top’s assets rather than Chandra’s assets. The court also found that ChatGPT’s uncorroborated analysis of Chandra’s deposition transcript was not reliable. Second, the court declined to consider the subpoena as a basis for reconsideration because Chandra could have submitted it with his earlier motion and had not shown newly emerged facts or a prior failure to consider material information. Third, the court rejected Chandra’s claim of unfair procedural treatment. It explained that he had not properly directed the court to the deposition transcript, that an earlier order did not invite Kobo to issue another subpoena, and that the court was permitted to decide the motions without oral argument.

Motion for admonishment

Chandra sought an admonishment against Kobo’s counsel for demanding compliance with post-judgment discovery while the reconsideration motion was pending. The court stated that sanctions or similar measures may be available for bad-faith conduct, recklessness combined with factors such as frivolousness or harassment, or other improper conduct. It concluded that Kobo’s counsel’s conduct did not approach the level warranting an admonishment. The court found no basis for Kobo to stop pursuing the post-judgment discovery because the earlier order allowed those efforts to continue, Civil Local Rule 7-9 did not automatically stay proceedings upon the filing of a reconsideration motion, and Chandra had not sought a stay or protective order.

Disposition

The court denied both of Chandra’s motions: the motion for reconsideration and the motion for admonishment. It did not impose sanctions at that time, but issued the warning described above. The order was signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu.