Elasticsearch, Inc. v. Floragunn GmBH
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:19-cv-05553
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Elasticsearch v. floragunn, Judge Rogers denied relief from discovery rulings and granted sealing.
Elasticsearch, Inc. and Elasticsearch B.V. did not obtain the additional discovery or other relief they requested from Magistrate Judge Tse’s rulings; floragunn GmbH. prevailed on those challenges. Portions of the filings were sealed.
What happened
In Elasticsearch, Inc. and Elasticsearch B.V. v. floragunn GmbH., Elastic sought sanctions and additional discovery after floragunn did not produce Hendrik Saly for a deposition. Elastic challenged two discovery rulings by Magistrate Judge Tse.
The court denied Elastic’s request for relief from both rulings, concluding that Judge Tse’s decisions were not clearly mistaken or contrary to law. The court also granted the motion to seal portions of the filings.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued the order, which terminated Docket Numbers 150 and 151.
The detailed version
- Elasticsearch, Inc. v. Floragunn GmBH · No. 4:19-cv-05553
- Yvonne Rogers
- Sept. 24, 2021
Background
Elastic asked Magistrate Judge Tse to impose sanctions against floragunn GmbH. Elastic claimed that floragunn improperly failed to make its chief technology officer, Hendrik Saly, available for a deposition and misrepresented his unavailability. Elastic then sought additional discovery to support the sanctions request, including communications involving Mr. Saly and his wife, telephone records, documents concerning go-ffwd GmbH, a deposition of Jochen Kressin, and another proposed discovery procedure.
Judge Tse granted Elastic’s first two discovery requests. Judge Tse denied the request for documents and communications concerning go-ffwd GmbH, finding that Elastic had not shown the information was pertinent to the sanctions inquiry. Judge Tse also declined to order the proposed procedure. The request to depose Jochen Kressin was denied without prejudice, allowing Elastic to renew it after receiving the ordered documents and conferring with floragunn.
District Court Review
Elastic sought relief from Judge Tse’s rulings concerning the go-ffwd documents and the proposed procedure. For a nondispositive pretrial order—an order resolving a pretrial issue without deciding the ultimate claims—the district court may change the magistrate judge’s ruling only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court explained that this standard gives substantial deference to the magistrate judge and does not permit the district court simply to substitute its judgment.
The court denied relief concerning the proposed procedure because Elastic had not renewed that request after floragunn’s production, as Judge Tse’s order contemplated. The court also denied relief concerning the go-ffwd documents, concluding that it was not clear how information about that nonparty company would show whether floragunn lacked a basis to withhold Mr. Saly for the deposition during the relevant period.
Disposition
The court DENIED the motion for relief from Judge Tse’s Discovery Order. Finding good cause, it GRANTED the motion to seal portions of the filings. The order terminated Docket Numbers 150 and 151.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.