Opinion
3:22-cv-08991-JSC
03-29-2024
DANTE DEMARTINI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF
RE: DKT. NO. 364
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The parties' joint discovery letter brief regarding Activision's recent production of documents is now pending before the Court. (Dkt. No. 364.) Oral argument is not required to resolve this dispute. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Plaintiffs' request is granted in part and denied in part as set forth below.
Plaintiffs' request that Microsoft and Activision be ordered to confirm in declarations from knowledgeable individuals they have produced all documents ordered to be produced in this action, and provide a date certain for any documents not yet produced, is granted. Microsoft and Activision shall provide Plaintiffs with these declarations by April 10, 2024.
Plaintiffs' request is otherwise denied. Plaintiffs have not shown any prejudice from the delayed production. First, to the extent Dr. Bailey relied on three documents not previously produced and which Plaintiffs' expert had not reviewed, Microsoft subsequently stipulated to an extension of time for Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert report. (Dkt. No. 337.) That Plaintiffs chose not to have their expert address all of the documents Dr. Bailey addressed was just that-their choice. (Dkt. No. 363-3 at 5.) Second, even if Microsoft's expert Dr. Bailey relied upon these documents for her report, Plaintiffs had the opportunity to both review the documents and question her about them at her deposition. (Dkt. No. 346 at 3 (noting Dr. Bailey's deposition was set for March 25, 2024).) Third, as to the request to reopen Mr. Kotick's deposition, Plaintiffs have not identified any questions or categories of information they were unable to ask Mr. Kotick about because they did not have these documents. Indeed, Microsoft notes Plaintiffs only questioned Mr. Kotick about two documents during his deposition. (Dkt. No. 263-3 at 4.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not shown any further relief is warranted.
Plaintiffs' administrative motion to seal portions of the letter brief is granted. (Dkt. No. 363.)
This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 363, 364.
IT IS SO ORDERED.