Gopher Media LLC. v. Spain

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: September 25, 2020
• Docket: 3:19-cv-02280
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GOPHER MEDIA, LLC (formerly known Case No.: 3:19-cv-02280-CAB-KSC as Local Clicks) dba Doctor Multimedia, a 12 Nevada Limited Liability Corporation, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 EX PARTE MOTION FOR Plaintiff, RECONSIDERATION [Doc. No. 42] 14 v. 15 PHILLIP SPAIN, an individual; 16 STEPHEN MARINKOVICH, an individual, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 Before the Court is plaintiff Gopher Media LLC’s (“plaintiff” or “Gopher Media”) 22 ex parte Motion for Reconsideration and/or Clarification of the Court’s August 27, 2020 23 Order (the “Motion” or “Mot.”). Doc. No. 42. Defendants oppose the Motion (the 24 “Opposition” or “Opp.”) Doc. No. 44. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 25 DENIES the Motion. 26 On August 27, 2020, the Court issued an order resolving several disputes regarding 27 the production of ESI in this Action (the “ESI Order”). Doc. No. 36. In the Motion, 28 plaintiff objects to the provision in the ESI Order requiring Gopher Media’s CEO, Ajay 1 || Thakore, to produce his electronic devices for forensic examination (see Doc. No. 36 at 2 || 8) and requests that the Court “delete” this portion of the ESI Order. Doc. No. 42 at 2. 3 || The Court declines to do so. 4 As noted, Mr. Thakore is the CEO of Gopher Media. He is clearly knowledgeable 5 || about the facts underlying plaintiff's allegations. As the Court referenced in its ESI 6 || Order, defendants have asserted various affirmative defenses relating to Mr. Thakore’s 7 || actions on behalf of Gopher Media. Doc. No. 36 at 2, 7-8. The Court therefore 8 determined in the exercise of its discretion that a forensic examination of Mr. Thakore’s 9 ||electronic devices was necessary to ensure a fair resolution of the issues. See, e.g., 10 || Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (recognizing the Court’s “broad 11 |/discretion” to “permit or deny discovery”); Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1515 (9th 12 || Cir. 1996) (“[A] district court is vested with ‘broad discretion to make discovery ... 13 rulings conducive to the conduct of a fair and orderly trial.’”’) (citation omitted). 14 || Plaintiffs Motion does not provide any reason to depart from that determination. 15 || Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion is DENIED. 16 ORDER 17 || For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 18 1. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 42] is DENIED. 19 2. Plaintiff shall produce any cell phones, laptops, tablets, and memory storage 20 devices in use by Gopher Media’s CEO, Ajay Thakore, from January 1, 2018 to 21 the present for forensic examination in accordance with the parties’ Forensic 22 Examination Protocol within 5 business days of the date of this Order. 23 || IT ISSO ORDERED. 24 ||Dated: September 25, 2020 dj i. ™) 25 WU LA _———_ 6 Hori. Karen S. Crawford United States Magistrate Judge 27 28