In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation

Filing 104

ORDER Concerning Testifying Expert Discovery. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 1/23/2012. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2012)

Download PDF
Case5:11-cv-02509-LHK Document99 Filed12/05/11 Page1 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Robert A. Mittelstaedt (State Bar No. 60359) ramittelstaedt@JonesDay.com Craig E. Stewart (State Bar No. 129530) cestewart@JonesDay.com JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 Facsimile: (415) 875-5700 Catherine T. Broderick (State Bar No. 251231) cbroderick@jonesday.com JONES DAY 1755 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: (650) 739-3939 Facsimile: (650) 739-3900 Attorneys for Defendant INTUIT INC. 11 [Additional Parties and Counsel Listed on Signature Page.] 12 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 SAN JOSE DIVISION 16 17 IN RE: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK 19 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 20 ALL ACTIONS STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING TESTIFYING EXPERT DISCOVERY 18 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION CONCERNING TESTIFYING EXPERT DISCOVERY MASTER DOCKET NO. 11-CV-2509-LHK Case5:11-cv-02509-LHK Document99 Filed12/05/11 Page2 of 4 1 2 3 4 STIPULATION CONCERNING TESTIFYING EXPERT DISCOVERY The parties stipulate to the following regarding the scope of testifying expert discovery in the above-captioned matter: 1. This Stipulation And Order Concerning Testifying Expert Discovery 5 (“Stipulation”) will govern discovery from testifying experts in the above-captioned matter. 6 Subject to the limitations herein, the parties shall comply with Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of 7 Civil Procedure. To the extent that this Stipulation imposes limitations on discovery which 8 otherwise would be available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties have agreed 9 to any such limitations. Neither the terms of the Stipulation nor the parties’ agreement to them 10 shall be considered an admission by any person that any of the information restricted from 11 discovery by this Stipulation would otherwise be discoverable or admissible. 12 13 2. The following types of information shall not be the subject of discovery by subpoena, deposition or otherwise: a. the content of communications among and between: 14 15 i. counsel and testifying expert witnesses; 16 ii. testifying expert witnesses and their respective staffs; 17 iii. testifying expert witnesses and consultants; 18 iv. communications among or between testifying expert witnesses; and b. notes, drafts, written communications, preliminary or intermediate 19 20 calculations, computations or other data runs, or other types of preliminary 21 work created by, for, or at the direction of testifying expert witnesses. 22 3. The protections against discovery contained in the preceding paragraph shall not 23 apply to any communications or documents upon which a testifying expert relies as a basis for 24 any of his or her opinions or reports. 25 Consented and agreed to by the following parties: 26 27 28 -1- STIPULATION CONCERNING TESTIFYING EXPERT DISCOVERY MASTER DOCKET NO. 11-CV-2509-LHK Case5:11-cv-02509-LHK Document99 Filed12/05/11 Page3 of 4 1 Dated: December 5, 2011 LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 2 By: 3 4 /s/ Joseph R. Saveri JOSEPH R. SAVERI Interim Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 5 6 Dated: December 5, 2011 7 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: 8 9 10 Dated: December 5, 2011 /s/ Michael F. Tubach MICHAEL F. TUBACH Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC. KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 11 By: 12 13 /s/ Daniel Purcell DANIEL PURCELL Attorneys for Defendant LUCASFILM LTD. 14 15 Dated: December 5, 2011 16 JONES DAY By: 17 18 19 Dated: December 5, 2011 /s/ David C. Kiernan DAVID C. KIERNAN Attorneys for Defendant ADOBE SYSTEMS INC. MAYER BROWN LLP 20 By: 21 22 /s/ Lee H. Rubin LEE H. RUBIN Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC. 23 24 Dated: December 5, 2011 BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP 25 By: 26 /s/ Zachery J. Alinder ZACHERY J. ALINDER Attorneys for Defendant INTEL CORPORATION 27 28 -2- STIPULATION CONCERNING TESTIFYING EXPERT DISCOVERY MASTER DOCKET NO. 11-CV-2509-LHK Case5:11-cv-02509-LHK Document99 Filed12/05/11 Page4 of 4 1 Dated: December 5, 2011 JONES DAY 2 By: 3 4 /s/ Robert A. Mittelstaedt ROBERT A. MITTELSTAEDT Attorneys for Defendant INTUIT INC. 5 6 Dated: December 5, 2011 7 COVINGTON & BURLING LLP By: 8 9 /s/ Emily Johson Henn EMILY JOHNSON HENN Attorneys for Defendant PIXAR 10 FILER’S ATTESTATION 11 Pursuant to General Order No. 45, § X(B), I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in 12 the filing of the document has been obtained from all the signatories. 13 14 Dated: December 5, 2011 15 By: /s/ Catherine T. Broderick CATHERINE T. BRODERICK 16 17 18 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 21 Dated: January 23, 2012 _________________________ Honorable Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- STIPULATION CONCERNING TESTIFYING EXPERT DISCOVERY MASTER DOCKET NO. 11-CV-2509-LHK