Network Appliance Inc. v. Sun Microsystems Inc
ORDER re 591 Letter filed by Network Appliance Inc., Sun Microsystems Inc. Signed by Judge Laporte on 11/12/09. (edllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2009)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On November 5, 2009, the parties submitted a joint letter brief regarding a discovery dispute over the consequences of an internal email produced by Sun in August 2009 (after the close of discovery) as document SUN05523442. Based on a review of the joint letter brief, the Court concludes that it would be premature to rule on the issues raised therein at this time. The upcoming depositions of Mr. Wong and Mr. Weinberg should clarify the meaning and import of the email in question and obviate the need for at least some of the additional discovery requested by NetApp. NetApp's request to re-depose Ms. Krall is also premature prior to these depositions, as the parties have agreed to discuss an additional deposition of her following the depositions of Mr. Wong and Mr. Weinberg. NetApp's request for additional document requests is also premature, as the parties have not met and conferred on this issue and may be able to come to a resolution without court involvement. Following the depositions of Mr. Wong and Mr. Weinberg, if portions of this discovery dispute remain unresolved, the Court will entertain a two-page letter brief summarizing the remaining issues and suggesting what method the Court should use to resolve them. The Court notes that it will likely need to see the email in question, rather than have it selectively quoted in the letter, if the dispute remains unresolved. The parties have also submitted briefing regarding whether or not portions of the joint letter v. SUN MICROSYSTEMS INC., Defendant. / NETWORK APPLIANCE, INC., Plaintiff, No. C-07-06053 EDL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER REGARDING NOVEMBER 5, 2009 JOINT LETTER BRIEF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
brief should be filed under seal. Sun is correct that NetApp should have filed a noticed motion pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order, and in the future NetApp should adhere to that procedure. However, to expedite matters, the Court will allow Sun to respond to NetApp's Objection in the form of a brief five pages or less by no later than Tuesday, November 17, 2009. The Court will then decide on the sealing issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 12, 2009 ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?