Tangle Inc. v. Aritzia, Inc.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TANGLE INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARITZIA LP, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-01196-JSW (KAW)
ORDER RE 11/7/2025 DISCOVERY
LETTER
Re: Dkt. No. 107, 112
Plaintiff Tangle Inc. filed the instant case against Defendant Aritzia LP and United States
of Artizia, Inc. asserting that Defendants infringed on Plaintiff’s copyrights of sculptures by
selling, marketing, and displaying hundreds of infringing sculptures in their store fronts. (See
Second Amend. Compl. (“SAC”) ¶¶ 1-3.) On November 7, 2025, the parties filed a discovery
letter concerning Defendants’ ESI production. 1 (Discovery Letter, Dkt. No. 107.) On November
19, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “supplement,” which was not authorized by the Court. (Pl.’s Supp., Dkt.
No. 112.)
A. Messages
Plaintiff seeks messages and communications outside of e-mail, such as Zoom messages,
iMessages, and text messages. (Discovery Letter at 2.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendants’ counsel
had confirmed that “Aritzia employees ‘primarily relied on non-email forms of communications,”
but that Defendants have refused to produce any such communications. (Id.)
Defendants dispute Plaintiff’s characterization of what was stated and asserts that the
1 The Court notes the footnote size is improper. (See N.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 3-4(c)(2)
(requiring that all written text, including footnotes, be in 12-point type or larger).) Going forward,
the Court will not consider any non-compliant footnotes.
Case 4:23-cv-01196-JSW Document 114 Filed 12/19/25 Page 1 of 4

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern
 District of California
primary method of communication was in-person and that the secondary method of
communication was e-mail. (Discovery Letter at 4.) Defendants state that communications via
Zoom chat and text messages are the least common means of communication, and that Zoom
messaging was not used at all. (Id.)
Regardless of which medium was most used, Defendants have an obligation to produce all
responsive evidence. The fact that text messages or Zoom chat were less frequently used does not
make them any less responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. While the Court cannot order
Defendants to produce what does not exist, Defendants need to produce responsive messages.
In the alternative, Defendants argue that the burden and expense of producing “the skeleton
of an SMS text” is not proportional to the needs of the case. (Discovery Letter at 5.) It is unclear
what Defendants mean by “the skeleton” of an SMS text, and Defendants provide no explanation
for why this would prevent Defendants from producing the actual text messages, iMessages, or
other communications being requested. Thus, Defendants have failed to establish there is undue
burden in producing responsive communications.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendants to begin a rolling production of non-email
communications within seven days of the date of this order. The parties should meet and confer
as to the order in which individuals’ communications will be reviewed and produced.
B. Search Terms
Plaintiff provided search terms, which Defendants used except for nine proposed terms.
(Discovery Letter at 3, 5.) Plaintiff asserts that it is not clear that Defendants used searches that
would capture text variations (for example, whether a search for “window display” would turn up
references to “window displays”) or are not case-sensitive. (Id. at 3.) Defendants confirm that its
e-Discovery tool cannot conduct wildcard searches or use special characters and Boolean
operators, but do not clarify whether they were able to use other searches that would capture text
variations or are not case-sensitive. (Id. at 5.)
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a “supplement,” complaining that Defendant had made
misrepresentations in the joint letter. (Pl.’s Supp. at 2.) It is unclear why Plaintiff did not address
these issues before filing the discovery letter (indeed, the letter was filed by Plaintiff’s counsel).
Case 4:23-cv-01196-JSW Document 114 Filed 12/19/25 Page 2 of 4

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern
 District of California
Plaintiff generally challenges the representations made by Defendants regarding the capabilities of
its e-Discovery tool. The Court STRIKES the supplement as improper.
In any case, the Court lacks the information needed to determine if further searches are
needed because Defendants have failed to explain what its search capabilities are. It is also
unclear what searches Plaintiff believes would require variations. Thus, the Court is not able to
determine the adequacy of the search conducted to date, whether additional searches would be
reasonable, and what those additional searches would entail. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the
parties to meet and confer further, during which Defendants must fully explain their search
capabilities, including whether their searches could capture text variations or were case-sensitive.
As to Plaintiff’s complaint that Defendants have not accepted or reported hit results for
nine proposed terms, Plaintiff fails to identify these terms, let alone explain why these terms are
likely to lead to discoverable evidence. Thus, the Court has no information to determine if those
nine terms should be used.
C. Metadata
Finally, Plaintiff complains that Defendants’ metadata field is inadequate because it
identifies the custodian as “ARITZIA” or is empty, rather than identify the specific individual who
possessed the document. (Discovery Letter at 4.) Defendants respond that it is common practice
to produce non-custodial documents that way. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff, however, asserts that every
document produced by Defendants has the custodian metadata field set to Aritzia or is empty. (Id.
at 4.) Defendants are ordered to produce metadata for custodian documents that identifies the
specific custodian, not just “Aritzia,” to the extent such information exists.
Plaintiff also points to Defendants’ FILE_PATH metadata, which is filled in with
information about where the produced file is located on the production media rather than in its
original form and sequence. (Id.) Defendants respond that they did provide metadata, but do not
dispute that the metadata is based on where the file was located on the production media rather
than its original form and sequence. (Id. at 5.) Defendants provide no authority or argument that
producing metadata based on where the file was located on the production media is appropriate.
Accordingly, Defendants are ordered to produce the metadata of where the produced file was
Case 4:23-cv-01196-JSW Document 114 Filed 12/19/25 Page 3 of 4

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern
 District of California
located in its original form and sequence, to the extent such information exists.
D. Conclusion
The Court ORDERS Defendants to begin a rolling production of non-email
communications within seven days of the date of this order. Additionally, Defendants are
ORDERED to produce the appropriate metadata within 21 days of the date of this order. The
parties are ORDERED to meet and confer within ten days of the date of this order as to the
appropriateness of the searches, including whether the searches have captured text variations and
whether they are case-sensitive.
This order disposes of Dkt. Nos. 107 and 112.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 19, 2025
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:23-cv-01196-JSW Document 114 Filed 12/19/25 Page 4 of 4