Davis

Davis v. Pinterest, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 8, 20214:19-cv-07650California2,552 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 HAROLD DAVIS, Case No. 19-cv-07650-HSG (TSH)

Plaintiff,

DISCOVERY ORDER

v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 127, 131, 137, 140 PINTEREST, INC., Defendant.

12 On the last day to move to compel, Pinterest filed two motions. The first was a sweeping motion to compel directed at Harold Davis’s claims of infringement. ECF No. 127. The Court is unable to discern why Pinterest filed this motion at the last possible moment. The discovery requests concerning Pinterest’s license defense seem like the sort of thing Pinterest would want to move to compel at the beginning of discovery, not at the very end. As for the Pixsy documents and information, in Pinterest’s own telling of the story, it should have known it wanted those materials since at least July of this year. The timing of the other motion – for a determination that four particular documents produced by Pixsy are not entitled to work product protection (ECF No. 131) – makes sense because that dispute did not…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.