Federal Trade Commission v. Directv, Inc. et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01129

Discovery Order re: {{148}} Discovery Letter Brief Regarding FTC RFP No. 2. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/10/2016.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 6 Case No. 15-cv-01129-HSG (MEJ) Plaintiff, 7 DISCOVERY ORDER v. 8 Re: Dkt. No. 148 DIRECTV, INC., et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 On June 9, 2016, Defendants DIRECTV and DIRECTV, LLC (collectively, "DIRECTV") Northern District of California United States District Court 13 and Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") filed a joint discovery letter regarding the FTC's 14 Request for Production ("RFP") No. 2, which seeks "[a]ll Advertisements disseminated to 15 consumers relating to the Service." Dkt. No. 148 (Jt. Ltr.); Id., Ex. A (FTC's RFPs)1, Dkt. No. 16 148-1. The FTC notes it served its RFPs on June 26, 2015, and DIRECTV does not dispute the 17 central relevance of its advertisements to this case. Id. at 2. Instead, the FTC states that prior to 18 this letter brief, DIRECTV maintained the FTC would receive a production of DIRECTV's ads 19 from various nonparties, but "now changes its position to promise to provide responsive 20 documents by July 8, 2016 – over a year after the RFP was propounded, and only two weeks 21 before the close of fact discovery." Id. In response, DIRECTV maintains that it and third-parties 22 in this case "have produced tens of thousands of pages of advertisements," the FTC "has the 23 relevant advertisements," and "[a]ll that is left is a small amount of clean-up, which DIRECTV 24 has agreed to complete by July 8, 2016." Id. at 4. However, given the July 21, 2016 discovery 25 cut-off (see Dkt. No. 32), the FTC argues that "any additional delay in DIRECTV's production 26 27 1 "'Service' means any direct-to-home digital television service that [DIRECTV] have 28 Advertised, marketed, promoted, sold, or otherwise offered to consumers in the United States." Id., Ex. A ¶ 12. 1 would significantly prejudice the FTC. DIRECTV's proposal to produce its ads on July 8—just 2 two weeks before the close of discovery—will not permit the FTC to complete a meaningful 3 review to determine if any categories remain missing." Id. 4 As DIRECTV does not appear to dispute the relevance of the FTC's request, the Court 5 ORDERS DIRECTV to produce to the FTC complete copies of all responsive print, digital 6 (Internet), and television advertisements, as detailed in the FTC's portion of the joint letter and 7 that have not already been produced, by July 1, 2016. If the FTC contends more time is needed to 8 complete a meaningful review of the production, it may seek an extension of the discovery 9 deadline from the presiding judge, preferably in the form of a stipulation and proposed order from 10 both parties. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Dated: June 10, 2016 14 ______________________________________ MARIA-ELENA JAMES 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2