Gaby's Bags, LLC v. Mercari, Inc.

Background

This discovery order resolves several letter briefs filed by Mercari and Gaby’s Bags. Mercari had named Gaby’s Bags, Kody Yates, Gaby Yates, Kole Yates, Kimberly Yates, and Donald Yates as counterclaim defendants. Mercari served 25 interrogatories on each of the Yates counterclaim defendants, and they responded only with objections.

Interrogatories: ECF No. 237

The court sustained Kody Yates’s objection that the interrogatories exceeded the applicable limit because Gaby’s Bags and Kody were nominally separate parties but had the same relevant information and documents. Mercari had already served 25 interrogatories on Gaby’s Bags, so the court limited Mercari to 25 interrogatories for both Gaby’s Bags and Kody together.

The court overruled that numerosity objection as to Donald, Kimberly, Gaby, and Kole Yates. It found no basis to treat those individuals as nominally separate from one another or from Gaby’s Bags for purposes of the interrogatory limit.

The court found that the privilege dispute was not ripe because the Yates counterclaim defendants had not gone beyond their numerosity objections and said they were not withholding discovery that required a privilege log. The court also found most of the objections based on relevance, overbreadth, burden, vagueness, and ambiguity to be unsupported. It declined to compel an answer to Interrogatory 19 without additional briefing concerning consulting and trial experts.

The court found Interrogatories 10 and 12 through 17 overbroad, invasive, and insufficiently tied to the case. It struck references to “Plaintiff’s members/principals” from those interrogatories. It also narrowed Interrogatory 6 so it concerned agreements involving the responding person or a counterclaim defendant, on one side, and Mercari, on the other. The court ordered Donald, Kimberly, Gaby, and Kole Yates to answer Interrogatories 1 through 18 and 20 through 25 within 10 days, with the stated limitations on Interrogatories 6, 10, and 12 through 17.

The court rejected Mercari’s argument that the confidentiality objection had been waived, but found the objection meritless because the case had a protective order. The court granted Mercari leave to seek attorneys’ fees and costs under Civil Local Rule 7.

Requests for production: ECF No. 238

The court increased the discovery limit from 60 to 102 document requests per side because Mercari’s amended counterclaims added five counterclaim defendants. It determined that Mercari’s 60 requests to Gaby’s Bags and 42 requests to the Yates counterclaim defendants were within the new limit.

The court again found the privilege issue not ripe. It ordered the Yates counterclaim defendants to produce responsive, non-privileged documents for specified requests, narrowed other requests by striking references to “Plaintiff’s members/principals” or “your,” and denied Mercari’s motion to compel as to Requests for Production 6, 21, and 35. It ordered Gaby’s Bags to produce responsive, non-privileged documents for Requests for Production 42 through 60. The required production was due within 14 days. The court again granted Mercari leave to seek attorneys’ fees and costs.

Requests for admission: ECF No. 240

The court found that some requests for admission sought information the Yates counterclaim defendants reasonably might not know, while other requests sought information they should know or could determine. It ordered Kody Yates and Zhong to answer Request for Admission 33; ordered all the Yates counterclaim defendants to answer Requests for Admission 5, 40, and 41; and ordered Kimberly, Donald, Kole, and Zhong to answer Requests for Admission 44 through 46 and 49. The court also granted Mercari leave to seek costs and attorneys’ fees.

Additional briefing: ECF Nos. 241 and 242

The court ordered Gaby’s Bags to file its portion of each of two joint discovery letter briefs by March 11, 2021.

Gaby’s Bags’ motion to compel: ECF Nos. 244 and 245

Gaby’s Bags moved to compel Mercari to produce documents responsive to 40 requests for production. The court denied the motion because Gaby’s Bags did not explain why the requested discovery was relevant and proportionate to the needs of the case. The court stated that the moving party must provide those arguments so the opposing party can respond and the court can rule on the arguments presented.

Disposition

Judge Thomas S. Hixson issued a discovery order that granted and denied parts of the parties’ discovery requests, imposed production and response deadlines, ordered additional briefing, granted Mercari leave to seek fees and costs, and denied Gaby’s Bags’ motion to compel.