Blockchain Innovation, LLC v. Franklin Resources, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 30, 2025
• Docket: 3:21-cv-08787
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 BLOCKCHAIN INNOVATION, LLC, Case No. 21-cv-08787-TSH

10 Plaintiff, DISCOVERY ORDER 11 v. Re: Dkt. No. 413 12 FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC., et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 You don’t have forever to meet and confer about your discovery disputes. Rule 16 16 requires courts to issue a scheduling order, see Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16(b)(1), and one of the subjects 17 it is supposed to address is “the time to . . . complete discovery.” Id. (b)(3)(A). Civil Local Rule 18 37-3 states that no discovery-related motions may be filed more than 7 days after the discovery 19 cut-off. As the commentary to the rule explains, “‘Discovery-related motions’ encompasses all 20 motions relating to discovery, including motions to compel or protect against discovery, motions 21 regarding the duty to preserve documents, including spoliation motions, motions to quash or 22 enforce subpoenas, and motions for discovery sanctions.” 23 In this case, the close of fact discovery was May 31, 2024. ECF No. 210. That made June 24 7, 2024 the last day to file a discovery-related motion. Id.; Civil Local Rule 37-3. And on that 25 day, Plaintiff did so. In ECF No. 217, Plaintiff moved to compel concerning information about 26 Defendant Jennifer Johnson’s net worth. The Court granted the motion on June 26, 2024. ECF 27 No. 230. The Court’s order did not set a deadline for Johnson to comply, but both sides agree that 1 not comport with the June 26 order. The parties met and conferred about this for four months, and 2 on December 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed its motion to enforce the Court’s June 26, 2024 order. ECF 3 No. 399. Because the motion was related to discovery, the Court denied it as untimely, but also 4 stated that Plaintiff could file a Rule 16 motion to modify the case schedule to permit this 5 otherwise untimely motion, if Plaintiff could show good cause. ECF No. 410. Plaintiff has now 6 brought that motion. ECF No. 413. 7 This brings us to the question of what to do when a party files a discovery motion on the 8 last day to do so, wins, and then the other party allegedly defies the order. The Court’s view is 9 that this is a proper basis to seek a modification of the scheduling order to permit a motion to 10 enforce. The Court expects its orders to be complied with. If a party fails to comply with an order 11 issued at or after the end of fact discovery, there needs to be a way to correct that. But the Court 12 also expects the party seeking to enforce the discovery order to act promptly. Remember: when 13 this situation comes up, we are in the stage of the case where discovery is over and the ability to 14 litigate further discovery-related disputes is also over – and yes, compliance with a discovery 15 order is itself a discovery-related dispute. The commentary to Local Rule 37-3 makes that clear, 16 listing motions for discovery sanctions (which can be for a failure to comply with a discovery 17 order, see Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 37(b)) as one of the motions that has to be brought within seven days 18 after the close of fact discovery. Indeed, the remedy Plaintiff seeks here in its motion to enforce 19 the June 26 order is more discovery – specifically, document production and a deposition. 20 The big picture under Local Rule 37-3 is that discovery, and fights about discovery, are a 21 phase of a case that is supposed to have an end. At some point the parties need to move on to 22 summary judgment briefing and trial preparation. And so, if a party believes the other side has not 23 complied with a discovery order that was issued at or after the deadline to raise fact discovery 24 disputes, it should act promptly, consistent with the view that it is trying to wrap up something that 25 is supposed to be over already. The litigant should not do what Plaintiff did in this case, which 26 was to back burner the issue for months while the parties went off and briefed summary judgment 27 and Daubert motions, and then raised the compliance issue with the Court only after the more 1 confer for four months while it litigated a whole other phase of this case. That wasn’t diligent and 2 || doesn’t show good cause. Plaintiff's motion to modify the scheduling order is therefore 3 || DENIED:! 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 || Dated: January 30, 2025

THOMAS S. HIXSON 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 a 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' The Court also rejects Plaintiff's alternative argument that the discovery it seeks is required by Rule 26(e). Plaintiff is correct that the deadline to file discovery-related motions in Local Rule 07 37-3 does not apply to requests for supplementation under Rule 26(e). See Gamevice, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 2019 WL 5565942, *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2019). However, the discovery 2g || Plaintiff seeks now is not a supplementation or correction of information or documents it received previously. Rather, Plaintiff is seeking things Johnson never provided.