Oh v. Sunvalleytek International, Inc.
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:22-cv-00866
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Oh v. Sunvalleytek, Judge Van Keulen ordered Sunvalleytek to conduct specified searches and produce discovery by set deadlines.
The order directly affects David Oh and Sunvalleytek International, Inc. Sunvalleytek must conduct the specified searches, produce responsive documents and data, and participate in a follow-up corporate-representative deposition. The order also concerns documents and communications held by Sunvalleytek’s parent company, Sunvalley HK Limited, and specified email accounts.
What happened
In Oh v. Sunvalleytek International, Inc., the court resolved discovery disputes concerning documents and emails relevant to the alleged practice of paying for product reviews.
The order requires Sunvalleytek to search employee accounts and devices, certain company email domains, specified Outlook accounts, and records held by its parent company, Sunvalley HK Limited. It also requires searches for communications with Amazon and responsive sales and revenue data. Some of these steps were agreements between the parties.
Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen ordered Sunvalleytek to produce all responsive documents by February 22, 2023, and allowed the plaintiff to take a follow-up deposition of a corporate representative about the document searches by March 1, 2023.
The detailed version
- Oh v. Sunvalleytek International, Inc. · No. 3:22-cv-00866
- Vince Chhabria
- Feb. 9, 2023
Background
David Oh brought the case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The order addresses the parties’ joint discovery statement, request for a conference, and arguments made at a February 7, 2023 hearing. The disputed discovery concerned an alleged practice of paying for reviews.
Agreed discovery steps
The parties agreed that Sunvalleytek International, Inc. must:
- Conduct a reasonable search of current and former employees’ Google Drives and current employees’ work laptops and desktops for responsive documents. - Apply specified search strings to all collected email accounts from current and former employees, including the contents of attachments, and identify each account searched. - Attempt to obtain access to and search specified @sunvalley.co email accounts, including accounts identified in the order.
Disputed discovery rulings
The court found that Sunvalleytek had control over documents held by its parent company, Sunvalley HK Limited. It therefore required Sunvalleytek to search for and produce responsive documents within its own possession, custody, or control and within the possession, custody, or control of Sunvalley HK Limited.
The court also ordered Sunvalleytek to collect potentially relevant @sunvalleytek.com email accounts, including amazon@sunvalleytek.com, and apply the agreed search terms. Sunvalleytek had to identify the accounts searched. It also had to attempt to obtain access to or contact Microsoft about three specified @outlook.com accounts and search them for relevant information.
In addition, Sunvalleytek had to search for communications between Sunvalleytek or Sunvalley HK Limited and Amazon concerning the alleged practice of paying for reviews, and search for and provide responsive sales and revenue data.
Deadlines and follow-up deposition
The court ordered Sunvalleytek to produce all responsive documents no later than February 22, 2023. It also ruled that Oh was entitled to a follow-up Rule 30(b)(6) deposition—a deposition in which an organization identifies a representative to testify about specified topics—concerning Sunvalleytek’s document-search efforts. That deposition had to be completed no later than March 1, 2023.
Disposition
The order resolves the stated discovery disputes and adopts the parties’ agreed discovery steps. It was signed and entered as ordered by Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen on February 9, 2023.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.