Pop Top Corp v. Rakuten Kobo Inc., 4:20-cv-04482

Judgment Debtor Rohit Chandra filed an emergency motion for protective relief against alleged abusive and coercive communications from counsel for Rakuten Kobo Inc.
The motion was prompted by a July 22, 2025 email from Kobo’s counsel, which Chandra claimed raised safety concerns.
Chandra argued that past court orders limited post-judgment discovery communications and filings.
The court thoroughly reviewed the communications between the parties and referenced its prior orders regarding post-judgment processes.
Court found no indication of threats, coercion, harassment, or abuse in the email communications from Kobo’s counsel.
Chandra has filed multiple unsuccessful motions, leading the court to require that he seek leave before filing further discovery disputes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Protective relief due to opposing counsel's communications	Kobo's counsel is engaging in coercive and abusive email communications, raising safety concerns.	Counsel’s emails reflect frustration but no coercion, threats, or abuse; proper post-judgment discovery pursued.	Denied: Communications not harassing, coercive, or threatening.
Discovery procedures after motion to vacate	Chandra claims the court’s order barred additional discovery activity after the motion to vacate.	Kobo contends its discovery efforts were within the court’s orders and rules.	Denied: Court clarified its order did not bar post-judgment discovery.
Requirement to respond to motion to vacate	Court prohibited filings on the vacate motion without permission, so plaintiff claims this applied broadly to all further communications.	Kobo maintains this applied only to further briefing on the vacate motion.	Held: Prohibition was limited to filings re: vacate motion; joint discovery processes allowed.
Appropriateness of sanctions or protective orders	Plaintiff cites cases to support sanctions or protective measures against alleged harassment.	Kobo argues the cited cases are inapposite and not factually similar.	Court: Cited cases do not support relief; no basis for sanctions.

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (federal courts have inherent power to impose sanctions for bad faith conduct)
Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989 (sanctions may be imposed for willful conduct, bad faith, recklessness combined with other improper factors)
Fjelstad v. American Honda Motor Co., 762 F.2d 1334 (extreme circumstances required for court to impose dismissal or default judgment)