Davis v. Pinterest, Inc.

Background

Harold Davis moved to compel Pinterest, Inc. to respond to 30 discovery requests: 28 requests for production and two interrogatories. The requests concerned photographs or images captured by Davis that were the subject of the litigation. The court noted that Davis filed the motion on the last day allowed for a motion to compel and that his briefing focused mainly on Pinterest’s objections rather than explaining what each request sought. The court stated that it could not grant Davis an extension of time because only Judge Gilliam could modify the case scheduling order.

Requests for URLs, Pin IDs, and Specific Locations

Pinterest had required Davis to provide URLs, Pin IDs, or specific locations on Pinterest’s service before it would search for or produce certain information. The court rejected that position. It concluded that Davis had identified at least the 51 registered works listed in Exhibit A to the Second Amended Complaint and that the requests sought factual information about those works, not Pinterest’s opinion about which images were infringing.

The court held that Davis was not required to tell Pinterest where or how to search. Pinterest was required to use reasonable diligence to look for responsive documents and information. The court therefore granted Davis’s motion to compel as to Requests for Production 1–11 and 23–24 and Interrogatory 6, to the extent Pinterest had refused to search based on the specific-identification objection. Pinterest was ordered to produce responsive documents and information within 30 days. If responsive documents did not exist or could not be produced without disproportionate effort, Pinterest had to serve amended responses explaining the circumstances, its search efforts, and what it found or had already produced.

The court declined to order Pinterest to produce documents responsive to Requests for Production 12 and 13 because Pinterest represented that none existed. It also declined to order a further response to Interrogatory 7 because Pinterest appeared to have answered it, although Pinterest’s explanation that producing the requested information would be extremely burdensome was described as conclusory and Davis had not raised that issue in his briefing.

Public Documents

Davis argued that Pinterest improperly limited its production to public documents for Requests for Production 11, 16, and 17. The court determined that Pinterest’s response to Request 17 was not limited to public documents because it agreed to produce non-privileged internal copyright policies subject to the protective order. Pinterest also confirmed that it was not relying on a public-document limitation for Request 16.

As to Request 11, the court stated that Pinterest could not categorically refuse to produce documents merely because they were non-public. The excerpt does not clearly state a separate final production deadline or other specific order for Request 11 on this issue.

Search Descriptions for Requests 12 and 13

Davis asked the court to require Pinterest to provide a declaration describing its searches for documents responsive to Requests for Production 12 and 13. Pinterest said that it did not have records showing which advertisements appeared near particular images or Pins. The court concluded that Davis had provided no basis to doubt Pinterest’s assertion that the records did not exist and declined to award the requested relief.

Spoliation Request

Davis argued that if the documents sought by Requests for Production 12 and 13 did not exist, Pinterest must have destroyed them. He sought an adverse inference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, meaning a possible inference against a party based on failure to preserve evidence. The court denied that request without prejudice because a request for sanctions had to be filed as a separate motion under the applicable local rules, rather than in a joint discovery letter brief.

Whether Documents Were Being Withheld

For Requests for Production 8, 20–22, and 27–28, the court agreed that Pinterest’s responses did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 because they did not state whether documents were being withheld based on each objection. The court ordered Pinterest to serve amended responses within seven days. It declined Pinterest’s request for a reciprocal order requiring Davis to amend his responses because Pinterest had not filed its own motion and the requested relief was not equivalent.

Organization and Labeling of Produced Documents

Davis argued that Pinterest had failed to identify which produced documents were responsive to which requests. The court rejected Pinterest’s interpretation that the rule’s organization requirement applied only to paper documents and not to electronically stored information. The court explained that the rule requires documents and electronically stored information to be produced as kept in the usual course of business or organized and labeled to match the request categories, and that electronically stored information must also be provided in its ordinary or reasonably usable form.

The court nevertheless denied Davis’s request because he had not argued or shown that Pinterest failed to produce the materials as they were kept in the usual course of business.

Boilerplate Objections

Davis challenged Pinterest’s repeated objections that the requests were vague, ambiguous, overly broad, or unduly burdensome. The court found the argument too undeveloped to evaluate. It noted that some requests might in fact have been vague, ambiguous, overly broad, or unduly burdensome, including requests using an unclear definition of “works” and requests seeking all documents about Pinterest’s copyright-related actions and policies. The court denied Davis’s request on this issue.

Disposition

The court stated that Davis’s motion to compel was granted in part and denied in part. It ordered specified production and amended responses, declined other requested discovery relief, denied the adverse-inference request without prejudice, and denied the requests concerning document labeling and boilerplate objections. Judge Thomas S. Hixson signed the order.