IntusCare, Inc. v. RTZ Associates, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
INTUS CARE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
RTZ ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 24-cv-01132-JST (AGT)
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 95
1. If RTZ has yet to produce the additional documents it recently identified as re-
sponsive to RFPs 28–81 and RFPs 100–101, it must produce those documents by March 20,
2026. After that production, if Intus continues to dispute the adequacy of RTZ’s search, the
parties may file an additional joint letter brief by March 25, 2026.
2. By March 23, 2026, RTZ must identify the date ranges of the Gmail inboxes RTZ
preserved. By the same date, RTZ must confirm that it preserved Melanie Martinez’s Gmail
inbox. With the exception of Martinez, Intus hasn’t suggested that the list of employees for
whom RTZ preserved Gmail accounts is incomplete or erroneous. The Court thus sees no
need to order RTZ to provide a further “description of whether . . . Gmail inboxes were
preserved.” Dkt. 95 at 3.
3. The Court won’t order RTZ “to provide a description of whether audit trails [of
Case 4:24-cv-01132-JST Document 97 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Intus’s access to RTZ’s system] . . . were preserved.” Id. Intus hasn’t identified any RFP in
which it asked RTZ to produce these audit trails.
4. Collabrios Health LLC needn’t respond to Intus’s RFPs. Even though Collabrios
acquired RTZ’s equity in 2024, id. at 5, Collabrios is a non-party. “As a non-party, [Collab-
rios] is not required to respond to interrogatories or requests for production of documents
served pursuant to Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Willing v. Arms,
2015 WL 5554128, at *2 (D. Nev. Sept. 21, 2015); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c) (stating
that “a nonparty may be compelled to produce documents” as “provided in Rule 45,” which
requires the party seeking discovery to serve a subpoena). Nor will the Court order RTZ to
produce Collabrios’s documents. Intus hasn’t established that RTZ has “control” over Col-
labrios’s documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 18, 2026
______________________________
Alex G. Tse
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:24-cv-01132-JST Document 97 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 2