Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Playstudios, Inc. v. Centerboard Advisors, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

December 3, 2019

PLAYSTUDIOS, INC., Plaintiffs,
v.
CENTERBOARD ADVISORS, INC., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is plaintiff Playstudios Inc.'s (“plaintiff”) objection/appeal from Magistrate Judge Koppe's order granting in part and denying in part the second motion to compel discovery. (ECF No. 69). Defendants Centerboard Advisors, Inc. and Josh Grant (collectively, “defendants”) filed a response (ECF No. 73).

         Also before the court is plaintiff's motion to reconsider and vacate a portion of Magistrate Judge Koppe's order. (ECF No. 70). Defendants filed a response. (ECF No. 74).[1]

         Also before the court is non-parties' objection/appeal from Magistrate Judge Koppe's order denying plaintiff's motion to quash.[2] (ECF No. 81). Defendants filed a response. (ECF No. 83).

         Also before the court is non-parties' motion for reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Koppe's order denying plaintiff's motion to quash. (ECF No. 82). Defendants filed a response. (ECF No. 83).[3]

         Also before the court is plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply. (ECF No. 87).

         I. Background

         The instant action arises from a breach of contract. (ECF No. 1-1). Plaintiff, a mobile games company, agreed to pay defendants for a variety of consulting services. Id. at 5. Plaintiff paid defendants a $50, 000 deposit. Id. at 6. Plaintiff alleges that defendants “materially failed to perform under the terms of the [a]greement . . . .” Id. As a result of this purported failure, plaintiff filed the instant action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and unjust enrichment. Id. On the other hand, defendants allege that plaintiffs did not pay them as required by the contract. (ECF No. 33). Consequently, defendants filed counterclaims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and unjust enrichment. (ECF No. 33).

         The various motions before the court pertain to two discovery disputes. First, plaintiff argues that it should not be compelled to provide certain business performance and financial records to defendants. (ECF Nos. 69). Next, 27 non-parties argue that the defendants' third-party subpoenas should be quashed because they impose an undue burden. (ECF No. 81).

         II. Legal Standard

         Magistrate judges are authorized to resolve pretrial matters subject to district court review under a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); LR IB 3-1(a) (“A district judge may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate judge in a civil or criminal case pursuant to LR IB 1-3, where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”). “A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Ressam, 593 F.3d 1095, 1118 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

         III. Discussion

         As an initial matter, the court denies plaintiff's and non-parties' motions to reconsider as moot in light of this order addressing their respective objections/appeals.

         A. Objection to the order granting in part and denying in part the second motion to compel discovery

         Plaintiff objects only to the portion of Magistrate Judge Koppe's order that compels it to produce financial and business performance records. (ECF No. 69). Put simply, plaintiff argues that it should not be compelled to turn over financial and business performance records because it does not believe the records are relevant to defendants' claims or defenses. (ECF No. 69). The court disagrees.

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 governs discovery's scope and limits and is liberally construed. Seattle Times, Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 34 (1984); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “[B]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery.” Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998).

         Although discovery is limited to any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and is proportional to the needs of the case, the “[i]nformation . . . need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). “Where inquiry into a party's financial condition is of only marginal relevance and based on speculative assertions, however, the court may in its discretion deny such ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.