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.

Entrata, Inc. v. Yardi Systems, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

May 4, 2018

ENTRATA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation, Defendant.

          District Judge, Clark Waddoups

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          PAUL M. WARNER, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         District Judge Clark Waddoups referred this case to Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).[1] Before the court are (1) Plaintiff Entrata, Inc.'s (“Entrata”) short form discovery motion regarding Defendant Yardi Systems, Inc.'s (“Ya r d i ”) customer relations database(s);[2] (2) Yardi's short form discovery motion for a protective order regarding Entrata's second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6);[3] (3) Entrata's short form discovery motion regarding Yardi's claw-backs;[4] and (4) Entrata's short form discovery motion for in camera review by a special master.[5] The court has carefully reviewed the written memoranda submitted by the parties. Pursuant to Civil Rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Utah, the court has concluded that oral argument is not necessary and will determine the motions on the basis of the written memoranda. See DUCivR 7-1(f).

         ANALYSIS

         Before addressing the above-referenced motions, the court sets forth the following general legal standards governing discovery. Under Rule 26(b)(1), “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. “The district court has broad discretion over the control of discovery, and [the Tenth Circuit] will not set aside discovery rulings absent an abuse of that discretion.” Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Merrill Scott & Assocs., Ltd., 600 F.3d 1262, 1271 (10th Cir. 2010) (quotations and citations omitted).

         I. Entrata's Motion Regarding Yardi's Customer Relations Database(s)

         Entrata moves the court for an order requiring Yardi to produce all data from its client relations management database (“yCRM”) that is responsive to Entrata's requests for production. Entrata correctly claims that Yardi does not dispute the relevance of the yCRM data. Entrata futher contends that by refusing to produce the yCRM data, Yardi has failed to comply with its obligations under Rule 34 because that rule requires production of responsive yCRM data. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. In response, Yardi argues that it has compiled reports and other documents from the yCRM data and provided them to Entrata, which, according to Yardi, satisfies its obligations under Rule 34 with respect to Entrata's requests for production.

         For the following reasons, the court concludes that Yardi's arguments are without merit. First, Y a r d i has failed to demonstrate that the yCRM data is not discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1). Yardi does not dispute the relevance of the yCRM data. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Additionally, Yardi has not presented any arguments concerning the limiting factors contained in Rule 26(b)(1). Yardi has not argued that production of the yCRM data is disproportional to the needs of the case, unduly burdensome, or unduly expensive. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

         Second, the court has determined that the yCRM data must be produced pursuant to Rule 34 to the extent any such data is responsive to Entrata's requests for production. Importantly, Ya r d i 's position is directly contradicted by Rule 34 and Rule 34's Advisory Committee Notes. Rule 34 specifically allows for discovery of “any designated documents or electronically stored information, ” including “other data or data compilations.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a)(1)(A). Moreover, the 2006 Advisory Committee Notes for Rule 34 state that

it has become increasingly difficult to say that all forms of electronically stored information, many dynamic in nature, fit within the traditional concept of a “document.” Electronically stored information may exist in dynamic databases and other forms far different from fixed expression on paper. Rule 34(a) is amended to confirm that discovery of electronically stored information stands on equal footing with discovery of paper documents.

         Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 2006 Advisory Committee Notes. Those authorities make clear that the yCRM data must be produced to the extent any such data is responsive to Entrata's requests for production.

         For those reasons, this motion is granted. Yardi shall produce any yCRM data that is responsive to Entrata's requests for production within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order.

         Although the court has granted Entrata's motion, the court will not grant Entrata's request for an award of reasonable expenses incurred in connection with this motion because the court cannot say that Yardi's position was not substantially justified. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(ii). Furthermore, the court does not believe such an award is justified under the circumstances. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(iii).

         II. Yardi's Motion Regarding Entrata's Second Rule ...


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.