Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 5-11-cv-01079 (CAND May 29, 2013, Order) (Grewal, M.J.).
Monday, June 3, 2013
Objection to Overbroad Discovery Requires Supporting Evidence, not Supposition
The court required plaintiff to provide information regarding its process in answering defendant's document demands before ruling on defendant's motion to compel further production. "When decrying the burden imposed by the document demands of an adversary, parties would be wise to follow Hemingway’s advice to 'show the readers everything, tell them nothing.'. . . [Plaintiff], however, has not provided to either [defendant] or the court any evidence of the universe of document custodians, a clear sense of the sources of discovery, or a sampling of responsive documents generated by [defendant's] proposed terms. Without this information, the court has an insufficient basis to determine the merit of [plaintiff's] objections. . . . This court is more than receptive to imposing strict limits on otherwise unbounded discovery, but it needs facts, supported by evidence, to draw the appropriate lines. It cannot do its job on the basis of mere complaints and suppositions."