United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE DEFENDANT'S
DOCUMENT REQUESTS RE: DKT. NO. 151
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI United States Magistrate Judge.
September 25, 2019, the Court ordered plaintiff Raja Kannan
to respond to several of defendant Apple Inc.'s document
requests by October 1, 2019, including Requests Nos. 14, 15,
16, 18, 19, and 21. Dkt. No. 120 at 5. Apple contends that
Mr. Kannan has not complied with this order. Mr. Kannan
responds that Apple seeks documents outside the scope of
Apple's document requests, that some of the documents are
not relevant, and that Mr. Kannan should not have to produce
documents that are already in Apple's
Nos. 14-16. Apple's Requests Nos. 14-16
seek documents about Mr. Kannan's and his family's
move to India:
Request No. 14: All Documents and text messages
discussing, referring to, or supporting Your decision to move
to India, including but not limited to the dates You decided
to move to India, during Your employment with Apple from
August 29, 2011 through the present.
Request No. 15: All Documents and text messages
discussing, referring to, or supporting Your wife's
decision to move to India, during Your employment with Apple
from August 29, 2011 through the present.
Request No. 16: All Documents and text messages
discussing, referring to, or supporting any time Your spouse
and son were physically in India, whether permanently or
temporar[ily], during Your employment with Apple from August
Dkt. No. 110, Ex. C. Mr. Kannan made several objections to
these requests, including various privilege objections. The
Court ordered Mr. Kannan to complete his production of
documents responsive to these requests by October 1, 2019,
with the exception of those documents as to which he claims a
privilege. Dkt. No. 120 at 5.
Kannan is correct that Requests Nos. 14 and 15 are limited to
documents discussing, referring to, or supporting Mr.
Kannan's decision to move to India and his wife's
decision to move to India, and do not encompass all documents
regarding Mr. Kannan's travel to India. Mr. Kannan is
also correct that Request No. 16 is limited to documents
discussing, referring to, or supporting the times Mr.
Kannan's wife and son were in India, and does not
encompass all travel by Mr. Kannan to India. However, it
appears that Mr. Kannan is withholding documents responsive
to these requests because he contends such documents are not
relevant. See Dkt. No. 151 at 6. In particular, Mr.
Kannan objects to producing documents reflecting Mr.
Kannan's wife's decision to move to India. Likewise,
Mr. Kannan objects to producing documents reflecting the
times Mr. Kannan's wife and son were in India.
Id. The Court has already overruled those objections
and will not revisit that decision. See Dkt. No. 120
Court orders Mr. Kannan to search for and produce documents
responsive to Requests Nos. 14-16, including the documents
Mr. Kannan contends are irrelevant, by no later than
October 28, 2019. At this time, Mr. Kannan
need not produce responsive documents for which he has
asserted a claim of privilege. Failure to complete this
production will subject Mr. Kannan and/or his counsel to
sanctions, including monetary sanctions, under Rule 37(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Nos. 18 and 19. Requests Nos. 18 and 19 seek
documents concerning Mr. Kannan's and his wife's
development of software applications during Mr. Kannan's
period of employment with Apple. Mr. Kannan represented to
the Court that he had already produced documents reflecting
his own development of software applications. Dkt. No. 110 at
7. The Court concluded that Mr. Kannan need not produce any
documents reflecting his wife's development of software
applications, but ordered that he must produce documents
reflecting software applications developed by any person
using Mr. Kannan's Apple-issued computer equipment. Dkt.
No. 120 at 5. The parties dispute whether Mr. Kannan has
complied with this latter directive.
Kannan says that his wife did not use his Apple-issued
computer to develop any software applications, and that she
only used Mr. Kannan's computer to back up copies of
software applications she developed separately. Dkt. No. 151
at 7. The Court previously concluded that Mr. Kannan's
wife's separate software development work is not relevant
to any claim or defense in the case. See Dkt. No.
120 at 5; Dkt. No. 128 at 153:24-154:17. However, Apple
argues that Mr. Kannan and his wife collaborated on software
applications and that such collaboration is relevant to
Apple's defenses. The parties dispute whether Mr. Kannan
has produced a list of the files he claims reflect his
wife's independent software development work and whether
those files must be produced. Specifically, Apple contends
that Mr. Kannan has produced a lengthy list of software
application files that are responsive to its document
requests, while Mr. Kannan characterizes the same list as
containing a large number of irrelevant personal files.
Id. at 3-4, 7.
Court orders Mr. Kannan to provide Apple with a list of files
reflecting the software applications developed exclusively by
Mr. Kannan's wife by October 25, 2019.
This list must not include any other files. No. later than
October 28, 2019, Mr. Kannan must file a
declaration under penalty of perjury (1) specifically
identifying the software applications he developed himself or
with any other person during the period of his employment
with Apple, and (2) attesting to the representation included
in his portion of the joint submission that his wife did not
use his Apple-issued computer to develop any software
applications, but rather used the computer only as backup
storage for those applications.
No. 21. Request No. 21 asks Mr. Kannan to
produce all documents concerning, reflecting, or relating to
any application he submitted to another employer during his
employment with Apple. Mr. Kannan represents that he has
produced all responsive documents, and his counsel represents
that she has personally participated in a search of Mr.
Kannan's emails for documents responsive to this request.
Dkt. No. 151 at 6-7. Accepting Mr. Kannan's and his
counsel's representations, the Court concludes that there
is nothing further to order with respect to this request.