CoStar Group, Inc. v. Commercial Real Estate Exchange Inc., 2:20-cv-08819

Background

CoStar Group sued CREXI for copyright infringement, misappropriation, unfair competition, false advertising, and breach of contract; CREXI counterclaimed for antitrust, trademark infringement, false advertising, and declaratory relief.
CREXI moved to compel: RFP No. 70 (CoStar’s discovery responses from four prior CoStar litigations), RFP No. 75 (communications with the FTC and other regulators about antitrust/consumer issues), and an order requiring CoStar to designate CEO Andrew Florance as a document custodian.
CREXI alleges a scheme by CoStar to monopolize internet commercial real estate listing, information, and auction services via exclusionary contracts, selective blocking/modification of listings/images, and trademark misuse.
CoStar contends prior lawsuits and public judgments show notice and need not open non-public discovery from unrelated litigations; it offered a narrowed production for regulatory communications tied to alleged antitrust conduct.
The parties submitted a joint stipulation and briefs; the Court held a telephonic hearing and took the motion under submission.
CoStar had already designated 11 custodians and collected over 7 million emails before the motion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (CoStar)	Defendant's Argument (CREXI)	Held
RFP No. 70 — prior litigation discovery	Prior lawsuits and judgments are sufficient; non-public discovery from unrelated prior cases is not relevant and would introduce collateral issues	Prior discovery responses are relevant to show a pattern of anticompetitive litigation and to test for inconsistent litigation positions	Denied — CREXI failed to show relevance; request speculative and overbroad (some prior witness statements remain discoverable if relevant)
RFP No. 75 — communications with FTC/regulators	Will produce communications that reflect findings of violations or findings tied to CoStar’s alleged specific antitrust conduct; broad production is overbroad	All communications with FTC/regulators about antitrust/consumer issues (four-year period) are relevant to show intent, inconsistent statements, and prior investigations	Granted in part — CoStar must produce FTC communications from the past four years that bear on the specific antitrust allegations (exclusive agreements, modification of listings/images, trademark issues); broader request denied
Document custodian (Andrew Florance)	Not necessary; CoStar already collected from 11 custodians and CREXI has not shown Florance has unique, relevant documents	Florance is centrally involved in operations and litigation and is a critical witness whose files may be uniquely relevant	Denied without prejudice — CREXI may renew after reviewing produced documents and via informal discovery dispute resolution if needed

Key Cases Cited

Garneau v. City of Seattle, 147 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 1998) (discusses broad scope of relevance in discovery)
Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 2002) (district courts have broad discretion to manage discovery)