Pratt v. Higgins

Background

This order resolves the parties’ discovery dispute at Docket 73. David Pratt grouped his document requests into 13 categories. The order addresses Categories 1–11. The opinion states that the parties did not dispute the relevance of the requests in Categories 1–5, 7, and 8, but defendants objected that searching for and producing the documents would not be proportional to the needs of the case and would be burdensome or unduly expensive.

Rulings on Categories 1–5, 7, and 8

The court explained that the party seeking discovery must establish relevance, while the party opposing production must explain why discovery should be denied. The court found that defendants had offered only conclusory statements about burden and expense and had not provided details supporting those objections. Defendants were ordered to produce all responsive documents by March 1, 2024. The order also notes that Pratt agreed to provide search terms for Category 7 requests seeking communications with foreign and domestic government entities.

Ruling on Category 6

Category 6 sought documents reflecting intellectual property. Defendants proposed producing only documents showing ownership of the intellectual-property assets at that stage. The court rejected that limitation, reasoning that the underlying intellectual property was also relevant to determining what was owned. The court found that the protective order already addressed defendants’ concerns about proprietary information and ordered production of all responsive Category 6 documents by March 1, 2024.

Ruling on Category 9

Category 9 concerned disputed transactions and the chain of custody for the alleged diversion of 3GL’s assets and property to defendants. Defendants proposed delaying production. The court found no justification for delay because discovery had not been stayed and fact discovery was scheduled to end on March 11, 2024. Defendants were ordered to produce all responsive documents by March 1, 2024. A document responsive to more than one request needed to be produced only once, and earlier responsive productions could be identified and incorporated by reference.

Ruling on Category 10

Category 10 concerned Pratt’s Evernote account. The opinion notes that the court had previously dismissed Pratt’s claim under Section 502 of the California Penal Code concerning accessing or taking data without permission. It also states that Pratt’s pending Section 496 claim concerns alleged improper transfers of assets and funds by the Higginses for their benefit and at the expense of 3GL and Pratt.

To the extent defendants had access to or control of Pratt’s Evernote account, or had possession, custody, or control of its contents, they were ordered to produce all responsive documents by March 1, 2024. The order did not require production if defendants lacked that access, control, possession, custody, or control.

Ruling on Category 11

Category 11 also concerned disputed transactions and the chain of custody for the alleged diversion of 3GL’s assets and property to defendants. The court stated that, because 3GP was a Canadian entity, Pratt had to use the proper foreign-discovery procedures if he was requesting books and records directly from 3GP. But defendants R. Higgins and S. Higgins were ordered to produce responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control by March 1, 2024.

Disposition

The court entered the discovery requirements described above. This was a discovery order, not a decision on the underlying claims.