Nicholas A. Ventura v. IQVIA INC., et al.

N.D. California

Nicholas A. Ventura v. IQVIA INC., et al.

DecidedJanuary 12, 2026

Docket3:25-cv-09163

StatusUnknown

This text of Nicholas A. Ventura v. IQVIA INC., et al. (Nicholas A. Ventura v. IQVIA INC., et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nicholas A. Ventura v. IQVIA INC., et al., (N.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 NICHOLAS A. VENTURA, 10 Case No. 25-cv-09163-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES IQVIA INC., et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 On December 13, 2025, pro se Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Special 16 Interrogatories. He also seeks attorneys’ fees as sanctions. Plaintiff states that he served a first set 17 of special interrogatories on Defendants “effectuated via electronic service through the Court’s 18 CM/ECF system” on November 2 and 3, 2025. Dkt. 54 at 4; Dkt. 55, Declaration of Nicholas A. 19 Ventura, ¶ 3. However, there is no such filing on this court’s docket, and all four Defendants assert 20 they were not properly served. Dkt. 67 at 3-4; Dkt. 69 at 6. Rather, Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Motion 21 to Compel shows the discovery requests were served via the electronic case management system 22 for the San Francisco Superior Court more than a week after the case was removed to federal 23 court. Dkt. 54, Ex. A. Since the interrogatories were not properly served, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), 24 33, Defendants are not obligated to respond. Moreover, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 26(d)(1), parties may not seek discovery before holding a Rule 26(f) conference. See Rovio 26 Entertainment Ltd. v. Royal Plush Toys, Inc., 907 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1099 (N.D. Cal. 2012). 27 Defendants represent that the conference the parties had on November 25, 2025 did not meet the 1 3. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel and request for sanctions are denied.! 2 3 || ITISSO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: January 12, 2026 # 6 RICHARD SEEBORG 7 Chief United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument, 27 and the hearing set for January 29, 2026 is vacated. 28 << SHORT ORDER TITLE >> CASE No. 25-cv-09163-RS

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 NICHOLAS A. VENTURA, 10 Case No. 25-cv-09163-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES IQVIA INC., et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 On December 13, 2025, pro se Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Special 16 Interrogatories. He also seeks attorneys’ fees as sanctions. Plaintiff states that he served a first set 17 of special interrogatories on Defendants “effectuated via electronic service through the Court’s 18 CM/ECF system” on November 2 and 3, 2025. Dkt. 54 at 4; Dkt. 55, Declaration of Nicholas A. 19 Ventura, ¶ 3. However, there is no such filing on this court’s docket, and all four Defendants assert 20 they were not properly served. Dkt. 67 at 3-4; Dkt. 69 at 6. Rather, Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Motion 21 to Compel shows the discovery requests were served via the electronic case management system 22 for the San Francisco Superior Court more than a week after the case was removed to federal 23 court. Dkt. 54, Ex. A. Since the interrogatories were not properly served, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), 24 33, Defendants are not obligated to respond. Moreover, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 26(d)(1), parties may not seek discovery before holding a Rule 26(f) conference. See Rovio 26 Entertainment Ltd. v. Royal Plush Toys, Inc., 907 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1099 (N.D. Cal. 2012). 27 Defendants represent that the conference the parties had on November 25, 2025 did not meet the 1 3. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel and request for sanctions are denied.! 2 3 || ITISSO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: January 12, 2026 # 6 RICHARD SEEBORG 7 Chief United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument, 27 and the hearing set for January 29, 2026 is vacated. 28 << SHORT ORDER TITLE >> CASE No. 25-cv-09163-RS

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Nicholas A. Ventura v. IQVIA INC., et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicholas-a-ventura-v-iqvia-inc-et-al-cand-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack