Wave Neuroscience, Inc. v. PeakLogic, Inc.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WAVE NEUROSCIENCE, INC., Case No.: 21-CV-1330-CAB-SBC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES (DOC.

14 PEAKLOGIC, INC. and KEVIN T.

NOS. 154, 155, 156) MURPHY, M.D., Defendants.

20 On July 17, 2023, the Parties notified this Court of the three discovery disputes that are the subject of this Court’s instant Order. On August 7, 2023, the Court issued an Order Setting Briefing Schedule Regarding the Discovery Disputes. (Doc. No. 135.) Pursuant to that Order, on August 17, 2023, Plaintiff timely filed a (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories (Set Two); (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One); and (3) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) (collectively, “Motions to Compel” or “Motions”). (Doc. Nos. 154, 155, 156.) Defendants timely opposed each of Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel on September 1, 2023. (Doc. Nos. 157, 158, 159.) Plaintiff timely replied to each of Defendants’ Oppositions on September 8, 2023. (Doc. Nos. 161, 162, 163.) Pursuant to its September 5, 2023, Order (Doc. No. 160), the Court convened a hearing on Plaintiff’s three Motions on September 29, 2023, at 1:00 p.m., provided its tentative ruling on the record, and thereafter heard oral argument from the Parties. Having done so, the Court ORDERS as follows: 6 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories (Set Two) 8 As to Plaintiff’s Motion regarding its Interrogatories (Set Two) (Doc. No. 154), the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion in its entirety and specifically as to Interrogatory Nos. 12 – 16. To that end, with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 14 and 15, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion, as Defendants already agreed to produce amended responses.

12 In accordance with Defendants’ representation, the Court ORDERS Defendants to serve their amended responses to Interrogatory Nos. 14 and 15 no later than Friday, October 6, 2023.

15 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) 17 As to Plaintiff’s Motion regarding its Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) (Doc. No. 155), the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion as to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 1 – 7, 12, and 13, and GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion as to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 8 – 10 and 14. The Court ORDERS Defendants to serve their amended responses to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 8 – 10 and 14 no later than Friday, October 6, 2023.

23 3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) 25 As to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel regarding its Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) (Doc. No. 156), the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion as to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 16 – 19 and 21 and specifically DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion as to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 18, 19, and 21, given Defendants’ agreement to produce responsive documents. Consistent with Defendants’ representation as to the latter category of document requests, the Court ORDERS Defendants to serve their document production responsive to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 18, 19, and 21 no later than Friday, October 6, 2023. As to Plaintiff’s remaining document requests, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion as to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 20, and 22 – 24 and ORDERS Defendants to produce documents responsive to those requests no later than Friday, October 6, 2023.

8 As noted at the hearing on September 29, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendant shall each provide a short status update to the Court by email to Chambers’ email address at [email protected] no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 13, 2023.1 Upon its review and consideration of the Parties’ respective status updates, the Court shall / / / / / / Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendants as to the three motions to compel is denied at this time. The Court finds that most of Defendants’ responses and positions were substantially justified.

However, the Court expressed its concern during the September 29, 2023 hearing that a party may not unilaterally decide to withhold information simply because they believe that they may be later dismissed from the case. Centerline Housing Partnership I, L.P. v. Palm Communities, 2021 WL 2493251 at *2-4 (C.D. Cal. 2021). Concerns about the burdensome nature of discovery could have been addressed through a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of a pending motion for summary judgment. However, such stays are often denied, because delaying or prolonging discovery can create unnecessary litigation expenses and case-management problems. Id. Defendant should not have made the unilateral decision to withhold producing documents due to the mere fact of a pending and potentially dispositive motion that could have dismissed Defendant from the case. However, the Court declines to impose sanctions against Defendant at this time, because Defendant did in fact produce documents following the denial of its renewed motion for summary judgment, and because Defendant agreed to produce additional documentation during the hearing of September 29, 2023. If necessary, the Court may re-visit the sanctions issue at a later time.

1 || determine what further action to take, if any.”

2 IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 || Dated: October 3, 2023 SF A.

6 United States Magistrate Judge 25 As a separate matter, the Court held a discovery conference on September 29, 2023 regarding Plaintiffs” non-party subpoenas for documents, issues that were raised in the parties’ joint discovery statement dated September 14, 2023. During the discovery || conference, the Court made certain rulings. The Court orders the parties to provide a status update on its meet and confer efforts with regard to these discovery issues during its October 13, 2023 email update to chambers.