SWISH ANALYTICS, INC. VS. ODDSJAM, INC. ET AL
Motion To Compel Compliance With Swish'S Requests For Production Of Documents And To Enforece The Court'S May 6, 2025 Order
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC24621009 - August 27, 2026 Hearing date: August 27, 2026 Case number: CGC24621009 Case title: SWISH ANALYTICS, INC. VS. ODDSJAM, INC. ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24621009 | Case Title: | | SWISH ANALYTICS, INC. VS. ODDSJAM, INC. ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-08-27 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion In Support Of Its Motion To Compel Compliance With Swish'S Requests For Production Of Documents And To Enforece The Court'S May 6, 2025 Order ***Redacted Version*** | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for August 27, 2026, line 4.
PLAINTIFF SWISH ANALYTICS, INC.'S Motion In Support Of Its Motion To Compel Compliance With Swish's Requests For Production Of Documents And To Enforce The Court'S May 6, 2025 Order.
Swish Analytics Inc.'s motion to compel production of documents responsive to its request for production numbers 1 and 28, respecting communications with two Swish licensees who have provided declarations to defendants Oddsjam, Inc., and Opticodds, Inc. (collectively Oddsjam), is granted in part and continued in part for further hearing to October 6, 2026.
Swish shows that the documents are within the scope of Oddsjam's representation of compliance in response to the RFPs and provides specific facts showing good cause for production. Meet and confer efforts were sufficient on this discrete issue. Oddsjam shall produce responsive documents, including correspondence with Oddsjam's agents (including attorneys), by September 8, 2026, but may withhold documents for which it claims work product or attorney-client privilege. Oddsjam shall provide a privilege log.
Determination of the merits of the work product or privilege claims is premature; the parties shall meet and confer after production of the privilege log. If meet-and-confer efforts do not resolve the privilege and work product disputes, Swish shall file a supplemental brief by September 22, 2026, and Oddsjam shall file a supplemental brief by September 29, 2026. The court defers consideration of sanctions to the continued hearing date.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/CVA) | |
Cited authorities
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”