Leidel et al v. Coinbase, inc., No. 9:2016cv81992 - Document 73 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 63 Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 65 Sealed Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge William Matthewman on 4/12/2019. See attached document for full details. (kza)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Leidel et al v. Coinbase, inc. Doc. 73 UN ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SO UTH ERN D ISTRICT O F FLORID A CivilN o.16-8lggz-clv -M arra/M atthewm an BRAN D ON LEID EL,individually and on behalfofAllOthersSim ilarly Situated, FILED B Plaintiff, V S. D .C. AFq 12 2919 COIN BA SE,IN C .,a D elaw are corporation ' d/b/aGlobalDigitalAssetExchange(GDAX), ANGELA E.NOBLE CLERK U S DISI CX s.o.oF&A.-w. RB. D efendant. O R DER G M N TING IN PA R T A N D D EN Y IN G IN PA RT PLAIN TIFF'S A M EN DED M OTION TO COM PEL IDES63.65l TH IS CA U SE is before the Courtupon Plaintiff, Brandon Leidel's Am ended M otion to Com pelD efendantto Provide Full and Com plete Responses to Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production(tkM otion'')LDES63,651.ThismatterwasreferredtotheundersignedbyUnitedStates D istrictJudge Kenneth A .M arra.See DE 26. Defendant,Coinbase,lnc.(k sDefendanf'),hasfileda response (DE 661,Plaintifffiledareply (DE 684,andthepartiesfiledaJointNotice gDE 7ljas required by the Court. The Courtheld a hearing on the M otion on April9, 2019.'l' he m atter is now ripe forreview .l 1. BA C K G R O U N D Priorto the scheduled courthearing, and afterfurtherpersonalconferralas ordered by the Court,thepartiesresolvedthemajorityofthediscoverydisputesontheirown.SeeDE 71 Atthe . lThe Courtnotesthatitorally announced itsruling atthe April9, 2019 hearing.ThiswrittenO rderisbeingissuedto furtherexplaintheCourt'sdecisionand rationale. 1 Dockets.Justia.com tim e oftheA pril9,2019 hearing,only Plaintiff'sRequestsforProduction #6-10 rem ained atissue. II. REO UESTS FOR PRO DUCTIO N #6-9 Plaintiff'sRequestforProduction #6 seeksthe follow ing: gtlransaction reports and screen displaysthatshow on a monthly,quarterly,and annualbasis,for the V ernon A ccount,Cryptsy A ccount,and M intsy Account,the total am ount of BTC and U SD bought, sold, transacted, received and sent, the beginning and eùding balance foreach such period,and any otheraccountm etrics available in Coinbase's adm in tools. (DE 65-31.Plaintiff'sRequestforProduction#7 seeksthefollowing: (tlransaction reportsand screen displaysthatshow on a monthly,qum erly,and annualbasis,foreach w alletin the Vernon Account,Cryptsy A ccount,and M intsy Account,the totalam ountofBTC and U SD bought,sold,transacted,received and sent,the beginning and ending balance foreach such period,and any otheraccount m etrics available in Coinbase'sadm in tools. (DE 65-31.PlaintiffsRequestforProduction//8seeksthefollowing: (tlransaction reportsand screen displaysthatshow on amonthly,quarterly,and annualbasis,for the Vernon Account,Cryptsy A ccount,and M intsy Accountal1 refenulbonusespaid to V ernon,Cryptsy and M intsy,the am ountof such bonuses, and the reason forwhich such bonusesw ere paid. (DE 65-31.Plaintiff'sRequestforProduction//9sceksthefollowing: gallltransactionreportsandscreendisplaysthatshow onamonthly,quarterly,and annualbasis,for the Vernon A ccount,Cryptsy A ccount,and M intsy Account,the type and am ount of fees charged to and paid by the Vernon A ccount, Cryptsy A ccount,and M intsy Account. (DE 65-31. W ith regard to RequestsforProduction //6-9,D efendantargued that,asa threshold m atter, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 does not require it to create new docum ents- the reports sought by Plaintiff- when those reports are not created in the ordinary course of business and Defendanthasalready produced to Plaintifftheunderlying data.D efendantargued thatthe casesin which courts have required the party responding to discovery to run reports not created in the ordinary course of business are cases in w hich the underlying data had notbeen provided,and there w as no other w ay for the m oving pal' ty to obtain the inform ation sought.Plaintiff,on the other hand, asserted that the prim ary rem aining discovery issue is w hether or notrunning the reports would be overly burdensom e to D efendant.Plaintiff further argued that,since he is now seeking only eighttsexem plar''reports,and Plaintiff'sow n declaration statesthatitw ould take one to three m inutesto run each report,D efendantcannotm ake any realburdensom enessargtzm ent. The Courthas carefully reviewed the case 1aw relied on by Plaintiffand D efendantand has conducted its own independentresearch.Som e coul' ts in the Eleventh Circuithave nlled that a party is notrequired to create new docum ents under Rule 34.See, e.g.,Arm or Screen Corp. Storm Catcher,Inc.,No.07-81091-CIV,2009W L 291160,at*3(S.D.Fla.Feb.5,2009). ,Nazerv. FiveBucksDrinkeryLLC,No.8:16-CV-2259-T-36JSS,2018W L 1583640,at*2(M .D.Fla.Apr. 2,2018).However,somecourtsoutsideofthisCircuithavefound adistinctionbetweencreating new docum ents and ûtrequiring a party to query an existing database to produce reports for opposing parties.''M ervyn v.Atlas Van Lines,Inc.,N o. 13 C 3587,2015 W L 12826474,at *6 (N.D.111.Oct.23,2015)(citingAppleInc.v.SamsungElecs.Co.,No.12-CV-0630-LHK (PSG), 2013 W L 4426512,at*3 (N.D.Cal.Aug.14,2013:.W hencourtsdorequiretheproduction of such reports,they considerthe burdensom eness entailed in preparing the reports.ld TheEleventh Circuitdoes notappearto have definitively determ ined the issue ofwhetherparties can or should berequired to producereportsthatarerequested bytheopposing parties,arereadily availableand easily produced, and are based upon relevant docum ents or inform ation that are kept in the ordinary course ofbusiness,butw hich reports are notprepared in the ordinary course ofbusiness. U nder the unique facts of this case, the Court does not view Plaintifps requests for production as requiring D efendant to create linew docum ents.'' Rather, the Court view s the requests as an effortto expediently and econom ically obtain from D efendant certain k'exem plar'' repol'ts aboutrelevant data in D efendant's possession,w hich tdexem plar''reports are easily and readily available to Defendant. The Court is not placing any extensive or undue burden on Defendant,butratherisattem pting to assistthe partiesin cooperating and collaborating w ith each other to m ove the discovery portion ofthis case forward.This m eetsthe goalofFederalRule of CivilProcedure 1to ensurethejust,speedy,and inexpensivedeterminationofevery action,and thegoalofRule26(b)(1),whichrequirestheproductionofrelevantandproportionaldiscovery. As stated in M enyn,supra,çtrequiring a party to query an existing database to produce reportsforopposing partiesisnotthe sam e asrequiring the creation ofanew docum ent.''2015 W L 12826474,at*6 (citingAppleInc.,2013 W L 4426512,at*3)(tdW hilethiscourthasheldthata party should notbe required to create com pletely new docum ents,thatisnotthe sam e as requiring aparty toquery anexistingdynamicdatabaseforrelevantinformation.').Giventhefactsofthis specific case,the Courtw illrequire Defendantto produce an A ugust2014 m onthly reportand a 2014 annualreport responsive to Requests for Production #6, 7, 8, and 9, for a total of eight dûexem plar''reports. There isnodisputethatthedocumentsunderlying such reportsare relevant.Furtherm ore, this is a case involving a greatdealof data thatD efendanthasproduced to Plaintiff in an Excel spreadsheet.ltisnotcom pletely clearwhetherPlaintiffactually hasthe ability to createthereports he seeks in Request for Production #6-9 from the raw data that has already been produced by D efendant.The production by Defendant ofthe Ssexem plar''repol' ts w illallow Plaintiffto better determ ine whether he can, in fact, create his ow n further reports from the data produced by D efendant. Furtherm ore, it is undisputed that Defendant's com puter system has the ability to quickly and easily prepare the reports from the relevant data.As stated in open court,after Defendantproducesthe eightk'exem plar''reports,the partiesshallconferon the issue ofw hether any additionaldiscovery in this regard is necessary and appropriate under the relevant rules and case law . 111. REOUEST FOR PRODUCTIO N #10 Plaintiff sRequestforProduction #10 seeksthe follow ing: (allltransactionreportsandscreendisplaysthatshow,onamonthly,quarterly,and annualbasis,forthe V ernon A ccount,Cryptsy A ccount,and M intsy A ccount,how such accounts ranked and com pared to other Coinbase accounts in term s of gross revenue,netrevenue,revenue by type,revenue by class,and any otherm etric used by Coinbase to m easure and com pare the protitability of and/orrevenue received by Coinbase custom ers. (DE 65-31. W ith regard to Request for Production # 10,D efendant argued that it did not have the inform ation soughtreadily availableand thatitw ould be extraordinarily burdensom eto obtain the inform ation. Defendant also argued that Plaintiff already has in his possession a m ultitude of discovery establishing thatCryptsy w as a high-volum e clientofD efendant,which isthe very fact that Plaintiff is trying to prove. Plaintiff asserted that D efendant did not m eet its burden of e'stablishing burdensom enessin the declarationsattached to Defendant's response to the M otion. The Courtw illnotcom pelD efendantto com pelany additionalinform ation responsive to RequestforProduction#10atthisjuncture. First,Defendantdidestablishburdensomenessatthe A pril 9, 2019 discovery hearing. U nder the facts of this case, the Court w ill accept the representationsofdefense counsel,who isan officerofthe court.Second,thepartiesare stillin the processofcom pleting depositions,so Plaintifpsm otion to com pelm ay becom e unnecessary asto Request for Production #10 since Plaintiff willbe perm itted to obtain testim ony from additional witnesses.lf Plaintiff has a good-faith basis to renew his m otion to com pel as to Request for Production #10 in the future,afteradditionaldepositionsare com pleted, he m ay do so. lV . CO N C LU SIO N U pon careful review of the M otion,response, reply, Joint N otice, relevant case law , counsel's argum ents atthe discovery hearing,and the entire docketin this case,and as stated in open court,itis hereby O RD ER ED asfollow s: Plaintiff's A m ended M otion to Com pel D efendant to Provide Full and CompleteResponsestoPlaintiffs'SecondRequestforProduction (DES63,651 is G R AN TED IN PA R T AN D DEN IED IN PA R T. The partiesare required to abide by alloftheiragreem entsdetailed in the A pril 4,2019JointNotice(DE 711. Plaintiff'sM otion isGRAN TED to theextentthat,on orbefore A pril16,2019, Defendantshallproduce eightStexem plar''reports,w hich includestwo reports responsive to RequestforProduction #6,tw o reports responsive to R equestfor Production #7,two reports responsive to Request for Production #8,and tw o reports responsive to RequestforProduction #9.Foreach ofthese requests for production,one reportshallbe an annualreportforthe calendar year of2014, and one reportshallbe a m onthly reportforA ugust2014.A fterD efendanthas produced the eight ûlexem plar''reports,the parties shallconfer as to whether any additionalreports are necessary and appropriate under the relevant case law . PlaintiffsMotion isDENIED withoutprejudiceasto RequestforProduction #10. 6 D O NE and O RD ER ED in Cham bersatW estPalm Beach,Palm Beach County, Florida, 7ky ot-April, 2019. this fl -d W ILLIA M M A TT EW M A N U nited StatesM agi rate Judge 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
