Pop Top Corp v. Rakuten Kobo Inc.
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-04482
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
Pop Top v. Rakuten Kobo: Judge Rogers denied Chandra’s emergency protective-relief motion and required leave for future discovery motions.
Rohit Chandra and Rakuten Kobo Inc., particularly their participation in post-judgment discovery and related motions.
What happened
In Pop Top Corp. v. Rakuten Kobo Inc., Rohit Chandra, identified as the judgment debtor, asked for emergency protection from what he described as abusive and coercive communications by Kobo’s lawyer. He pointed to a July 22, 2025 email and raised concerns about post-judgment discovery.
The court reviewed the communications and found that, although Kobo’s lawyer had expressed frustration and was litigating vigorously, the communications did not amount to coercion, harassment, abuse, or safety threats. The court also explained that an earlier order barred Chandra from filing more briefs on his motion to vacate, but did not bar him from participating in required discussions about discovery. The court found that the cases Chandra cited did not support his request.
Judge Rogers denied Chandra’s emergency motion for protective relief. The court also denied as moot Kobo’s unilateral discovery letter and ordered that Chandra must first obtain permission before filing future discovery-related motions; Kobo need not respond and no hearing will occur unless the court orders one.
The detailed version
- Pop Top Corp v. Rakuten Kobo Inc. · No. 4:20-cv-04482
- Yvonne Rogers
- July 25, 2025
Background
Rohit Chandra, identified in the order as the judgment debtor, filed an emergency motion for protective relief on July 23, 2025. He sought immediate protection from communications by counsel for Rakuten Kobo Inc. that he characterized as abusive and coercive. He relied particularly on a July 22, 2025 email.
The dispute arose in the context of post-judgment discovery. The court had previously allowed Kobo to continue seeking that discovery. Chandra had also filed a motion to vacate, which the court construed as a motion for reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9. The court had directed that Chandra could not file anything further on that motion unless directed to do so.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the correspondence between Chandra and Kobo’s counsel. It found that some communications showed frustration and vigorous litigation, but did not amount to coercion, harassment, or abuse. The court also found no threats to Chandra’s safety and noted that Chandra had not identified specific threatening language.
The court explained that the order restricting Chandra’s additional filings applied only to briefs on his motion to vacate. It did not prevent him from participating in meet-and-confer sessions with Kobo or filing joint discovery-dispute letters that complied with the law and court orders. The court stated that the parties were required to meet and confer regarding discovery disputes.
The court also concluded that the authorities Chandra cited did not support protective measures. It found that one cited case did not discuss sanctions, another involved circumstances that were not present here, and a third concerned the failure to produce relevant evidence and was factually different from this dispute.
Rulings
The court denied Chandra’s emergency motion for protective relief. It denied as moot Kobo’s unilateral discovery letter. The court further ordered that, if Chandra wishes to file a motion within the scope of the referral of discovery disputes, he must first seek leave to file it. Kobo need not respond, and no hearing will be held unless the court orders one.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.