True Footage Inc. v. Automax AI Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TRUE FOOTAGE INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
AUTOMAX AI INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-cv-03418-AGT
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 50
Plaintiff True Footage Inc. asks the Court to enter an order directing Defendants Au-
tomax AI Inc., Automax AI (US) Inc., and Humza Ahmed to preserve evidence. The Court
denies Plaintiff’s request.
The parties generally agree that courts considering a preservation order should assess
(i) the degree of concern that evidence will be destroyed, (ii) the risk of irreparable harm to
the requesting party, and (iii) the preserving party’s capability to maintain the evidence in
question. Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Nielsen, 328 F.R.D. 408, 416 (S.D. Cal. 2018) (citation omit-
ted); see also Capricorn Power Co. v. Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp., 220 F.R.D. 429,
433-34 (W.D. Pa. 2004) (different phrasing).
Here, Plaintiff hasn’t shown a “specific, imminent threat supported by the record”
that spoliation is occurring or imminent. Capricorn Power, 220 F.R.D. at 437-38. Its con-
cerns are (i) that this case involves “young people without litigation experience,” and (ii)
that Defendants haven’t responded in enough detail to its inquiries about the specific preser-
vation measures Defendants are taking. Dkt. 50 at 2-3. However, Plaintiff points to no prec-
edent justifying a preservation order based on a party’s age or experience, nor does it cite
Case 3:26-cv-03418-AGT Document 55 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 2

2
authority entitling it to the “specific assurances” it’s sought. Id. at 2-3. For their part, De-
fendants are represented by experienced counsel, have assured Plaintiff they intend to take
steps to preserve evidence and follow applicable law, and have stated their willingness to
negotiate an ESI protocol in good faith. Dkt. 50 at 5. The undersigned finds that, at this stage,
Plaintiff hasn’t carried its burden to show that spoliation is occurring or imminent.
After a complaint is filed, a party is under a duty to preserve evidence that is relevant
or could reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; this duty, plus the threat
of sanctions, is sufficient to secure evidence preservation in most cases. Bright Solutions for
Dyslexia, Inc. v. Doe 1, No. 15-CV-01618-JSC, 2015 WL 5159125, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept.
2, 2015). Greater preservation measures aren’t currently warranted here.
Plaintiff’s request is denied, without prejudice to its renewal if a legitimate basis for
a protective order arises.
This order disposes of dkt. 50.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2026
______________________________
Alex G. Tse
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:26-cv-03418-AGT Document 55 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 2