Glass Egg Digital Media v. Gameloft, Inc.

Background

Glass Egg and Defendant Gameloft, Inc. (GLI) submitted a joint letter brief describing a discovery dispute. Glass Egg asked the court to compel GLI to respond to 328 requests for admission and 256 requests for production served in early 2018, and also sought sanctions. Glass Egg argued that the requests remained relevant to the claims and defenses in the operative complaint, including issues concerning the operator, owner, or publisher of GLI’s website; sales and revenue; damages; liability; industry standards; willfulness; and pattern and practice.

GLI opposed the requested discovery as overbroad, irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of the case. GLI pointed to requests concerning whether players downloaded some digital assets more than others and whether certain digital car models generated more revenue than others. GLI also objected to numerous requests concerning California-specific jurisdictional discovery and to requests about GLI’s general corporate activities and relationships with third parties that had no apparent connection to the Asphalt games or digital cars at issue. GLI sought a protective order and asked the court to limit Glass Egg’s discovery.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a party moving to compel discovery must show that the requested information is relevant and proportional. A party opposing discovery must support its objections and show why the discovery should not be allowed. The court also explained that a protective order may forbid or limit discovery that causes undue burden or expense.

The court found, after a cursory review, that many of Glass Egg’s requests were inappropriate. Nearly 100 requests for admission and more than 100 requests for production appeared related only to establishing jurisdiction, which was not an issue between Glass Egg and GLI. Other requests sought general corporate and third-party information unrelated to the digital cars in the Asphalt games. Because of the volume of the requests and Glass Egg’s generalized arguments, the court found that Glass Egg had not shown that the requests satisfied relevance and proportionality requirements.

The court declined to review individually the nearly 600 requests in the 742-page attachment. It found that the sheer volume of the requests for admission was unduly burdensome and oppressive, particularly because the case involved five closely related claims based on alleged copyright infringement, conversion, and unfair competition and was not the type of complex case warranting discovery on that scale.

Rulings and effect

Judge Robert M. Illman denied Glass Egg’s motion to compel discovery. He also denied Glass Egg’s motion for sanctions. The court granted in part and denied in part GLI’s motion for a protective order. The court found that, at most, an overwhelming majority of the nearly 600 requests were improper, and GLI was relieved of any obligation to respond to those requests. Glass Egg was ordered to limit newly propounded discovery to no more than 50 requests for admission, excluding requests seeking authentication of documents or other evidence, and 80 requests for production. GLI was given 30 days to respond to the newly propounded requests, and Glass Egg could not exceed those limits without prior court permission.

GLI separately sought expenses for preparing its portion of the joint letter brief. The court denied GLI’s sanctions motion because GLI had not substantially complied with local requirements, including requirements for supporting declarations, a detailed description of efforts to resolve the dispute without court intervention, and particularized itemization and justification of requested expenses. The order also warned that future discovery motions could result in sanctions after an opportunity to be heard.