V5 Systems, Inc. v. Far
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:21-cv-03380
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In V5 Systems v. Saeed Far, Judge Beeler ordered discovery responses by August 31 and preserved V5 Systems’ objections.
V5 Systems, Inc. must respond to Saeed Far’s written discovery by August 31, 2022, but may assert objections. Saeed Far obtains the required responses, but the court did not deem V5 Systems’ objections waived.
What happened
V5 Systems, Inc. sued its former Vice President of Hardware Engineering, Saeed Far, alleging that he stole a chemical sensor and electronic design files and destroyed many of the files. Far served written discovery in June 2022, but V5 Systems did not respond.
Far asked the court to require responses and rule that V5 Systems had lost its right to object. V5 Systems agreed to respond by August 31, 2022, but maintained that it could still object to the discovery.
The court required V5 Systems to respond by August 31 and ruled that its objections would not be treated as waived. Judge Beeler also warned that failing to participate in discovery could lead to financial penalties or dismissal of the case.
The detailed version
- V5 Systems, Inc. v. Far · No. 3:21-cv-03380
- Laurel Beeler
- Aug. 22, 2022
Background
V5 Systems, Inc., described in the opinion as a developer of artificial-intelligence security technology, sued Saeed Far, its former Vice President of Hardware Engineering. V5 Systems alleged that Far stole a chemical sensor and electronic design files and destroyed many of the files.
Far served written discovery on V5 Systems in June 2022. Written discovery included interrogatories, which are written questions requiring written answers, and requests for production, which seek documents or other materials. V5 Systems had not responded. Far moved for an order requiring responses and determining that V5 Systems had waived, or lost, its right to object to the discovery. V5 Systems agreed to respond by August 31, 2022, but argued that it could still assert objections.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that interrogatories and requests for production generally must be answered within 30 days after service. Objections can be waived when they are not timely made. For interrogatories, a court may excuse the delay for good cause. The court also explained that courts may provide similar relief for requests for production when good cause exists.
The court considered the delay, its reason, possible bad faith, prejudice to the party seeking disclosure, the nature of the requests, and the harshness of treating objections as waived. V5 Systems attributed the delay to its poor financial condition, which it said resulted from Far’s conduct. The court found that treating the objections as waived would be overly harsh at that stage and that Far had not identified particular prejudice caused by the delay. The court found good cause to excuse the delay.
Ruling
The court ordered V5 Systems to respond to the discovery by August 31, 2022, and stated that V5 Systems’ objections would not be deemed waived. The court also stated that V5 Systems must participate in discovery and warned that failing to prosecute the case could result in sanctions, including monetary sanctions and, ultimately, dismissal. The order resolved ECF No. 50. The opinion does not expressly state that ECF No. 50 was “granted” or “denied.”
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.