Sungjin Inc Co., Ltd. v. Bag Studio, LLC

Background

This order addressed defendants’ request to compel Sungjin to produce documents and the parties’ related correspondence. The court had previously ordered Sungjin to explain why it should not be required to produce documents sought in defendants’ letters. Those letters concerned requests for production 2–4, 18–22, 32, 38–42, 44–46, and 48–51.

Sungjin agreed to produce documents responsive to some requests, but it did not address every request. For requests 44–46 and 48–51, it made general objections and asked the court to hold a hearing about what it characterized as unreasonable or overbroad demands.

Discovery ruling

The court stated that Sungjin had already been given an opportunity to explain its objections and had instead agreed to some requests, failed to address others, and made vague objections to the remaining requests.

The court overruled all objections, including objections to subparts, to requests 2–4, 18–22, 32, and 38–42. It ordered Sungjin to produce all responsive documents for those requests by March 22, 2021.

For requests 44–46 and 48–52, the court overruled any objections based on relevance. It left the issues of burden and proportionality for further discussion. The parties were directed to confer by telephone about each category and subcategory related to requests 44–46 and 48–51 and make a sincere effort to reach agreement.

If disputes remained, the parties had to submit a jointly prepared letter by March 23, 2021, unless they agreed to extend the deadline. The letter had to quote the disputed request and explain both sides’ positions in detail. The court noted that it might decide any remaining disputes based only on the letter. It also required Sungjin to explain, if requested, how it searched for documents and to provide that explanation in writing.

Confidentiality order

Defendants requested a confidentiality order and supplied a proposed version. Sungjin had objected to an earlier version and complained about defendants’ use of an “attorney’s eyes only” designation, but the court found it unclear whether Sungjin objected to the current proposal.

The court stated that a confidentiality order would assist in administering the case and resolving disputes. It therefore said it would separately enter an order largely based on defendants’ proposal. The court left questions about whether particular documents were properly designated as confidential for later consideration of those documents or categories.

Other rulings and instructions

The court limited required discussions, until the joint letter was filed, to the discovery requests raised in defendants’ letters. It said other disputes had been improperly included in the parties’ letters and had to be handled separately under the court’s procedures.

The court denied defendants’ request for sanctions because the parties still needed to continue discussing the disputes. It also cautioned Sungjin’s counsel to stop making statements questioning opposing counsel’s good faith and directed the parties to communicate respectfully and assume that the other side was acting in good faith.