E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. Moses & Singer, LLP et al

Filing 61

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 60 Stipulation, filed by Stephen N. Weiss, Moses & Singer, LLP. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/18/10. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2010)

E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. Moses & Singer, LLP et al

Doc. 61

1 JAMES R. ROSEN, ESQ. (State Bar No. 119438) 2 ADELA CARRASCO, ESQ. (State Bar No. 139636) 3 Members of ROSEN SABA, LLP

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

4 Beverly Hills, California 90210 5 Facsimile: [phone] 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 7 8 9 10 11

468 North Camden Drive, Third Floor Telephone: [phone]

E-PASS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12 E-PASS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware 13 14 15

Corporation,

Case No.: 3:09-cv-05967-EMC JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDERS IN UNDERLYING ACTIONS SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO PRODUCTION IN THE INSTANT CASE Assigned to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen Date: 12/22/10 Time: 10:30 a.m. Courtroom: C Complaint Filed: December 21, 2009

Plaintiff, vs MOSES & SINGER, LLP, a New York Limited Individual; and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Defendants.

16 Partnership; STEPHEN N. WEISS, ESQ., an 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DM1\2403081.2

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDERS IN UNDERLYING ACTIONS SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO PRODUCTION IN THE INSTANT - CASE 3:09-CV-05967-EMC
Dockets.Justia.com

1

Plaintiff E-Pass Technologies, Inc. ("E-Pass"), and Defendants Moses & Singer, LLP

2 and Stephen N. Weiss, Esq. (collectively, "Defendants"), hereby submit the following Joint 3 Stipulation relating to the above-captioned action: 4

WHEREAS, E-Pass was the plaintiff in the related civil actions entitled: (1) E-Pass

5 Technologies, Inc. v. 3COM Corporation, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District 6 of California, Case No. 00-CV-2255 (the "3Com Action"); (2) E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. 7 Visa International Service Association, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 8 California, Case No. 03-CV-4747 (the "Visa Action"); (3) E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. 9 PalmOne, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 04-CV10 0528 (the "PalmOne Action"). (The 3Com Action, Visa Action and the PalmOne Action 11 shall be referred to collectively as the "Related Actions"); 12

WHEREAS, E-Pass was also the plaintiff in the unrelated action entitled E-Pass

13 Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, et al., U.S. District Court for the Southern 14 District of Texas Case No. Civ A.H. 02 0439 (the "Microsoft Action"). (The Related Actions 15 and the Microsoft Action shall be referred to collectively as the "Underlying Actions"). E16 Pass sued the various defendants in the Underlying Actions for infringement of E- Pass' 17 patent; 18 19

WHEREAS, Defendants represented E-Pass in the Underlying Actions; WHEREAS, during the course of the Underlying Actions, E-Pass and defendants in

20 the Related Actions entered into various Protective Orders relating to the parties' respective 21 confidential business and trade secret documents. Ultimately, On August 16, 2005, the Court 22 entered a single operative Protective Order in the Related Actions whereby the parties agreed 23 that certain documents designated as "Confidential" by the parties would be protected from 24 disclosure subject to the provisions of the Protective Order. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" 25 is a true and correct copy of the August 16, 2005 Protective Order; 26

WHEREAS, on August 2, 2002, E-Pass and the defendants to the Microsoft Action

27 entered into a Protective Order in the Microsoft Action whereby the parties agreed that 28 certain documents designated as "Confidential" by the parties would be protected from 1
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDERS IN UNDERLYING ACTIONS SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO PRODUCTION IN THE INSTANT - CASE 3:09-CV-05967-EMC

1 disclosure subject to the provisions of the Protective Order. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" 2 is a true and correct copy of the August 2, 2002 Protective Order; 3

WHEREAS, the above-captioned action relates to claims made by E-Pass against

4 Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, professional liability and misrepresentation. The 5 documents that are subject to the August 16,2005, and August 2, 2002, Protective Orders are 6 now relevant to the above-captioned action; 7

WHEREAS, on October 21, 2010, counsel for defendants in this action sent

8 correspondence to counsel in the Underlying Actions requesting their consent to access in 9 this action documents subject to the Protective Orders in the Underlying Actions; and 10

WHEREAS, defendants in the Underlying Actions do not agree to allow counsel in

11 the above-captioned action to review the documents subject to the August 16, 2005 and 12 August 2, 2002 Protective Orders. 13

WHEREFORE E-Pass and Defendants, by and through their counsel of record,

14 hereby stipulate as follows: 15

1.

Counsel for E-Pass and Defendants in the above-captioned action agree to be

16 bound by the terms of the August 16, 2005 and August 2, 2002 Protective Orders; 17

2.

To accomplish this goal, each of the defendants in the Underlying Actions

18 should be ordered to appear and show cause why the documents subject to the August 16, 19 2005 and August 2, 2002 Protective Orders should not be subject to production in the instant 20 case under a Protective Order bearing the same terms and conditions as stated in the 21 August 16, 2005 and August 2, 2002 Protective Orders. 22 23 DATED: November 16, 2010 24 25 26 27 28

ROSEN SABA, LLP

By:

/s/ Adela Carrasco James R. Rosen Adela Carrasco Attorneys for Plaintiff E-PASS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
2

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDERS IN UNDERLYING ACTIONS SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO PRODUCTION IN THE INSTANT - CASE 3:09-CV-05967-EMC

1 Dated: November 16, 2010 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

DUANE MORRIS LLP By: /s/ Robert M. Fineman Richard D. Hoffman Robert M. Fineman Attorneys for Defendants MOSES & SINGER, LLP and STEPHEN N. WEISS, ESQ.

Based upon the Joint Stipulation of E-Pass and Defendants in this action and for good

9 cause showing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 10

1.

Each of the defendants in the Underlying Actions are ordered to appear

11 and show cause why the documents subject to the August 16, 2005 and August 2, 2002 12 Protective Orders should not be subject to production in the instant case under a Protective 13 Order bearing the same terms and conditions as stated in the August 16, 2005 and August 2, 14 2002 Protective Orders. 15 12/22 The Order to Show Cause hearing shall be set for _________________,

2

10:30 16 2010 at ____ a.m./p.m. 17

3.

Defendants in the Underlying Actions shall submit papers in support of

12/6 18 their position no later than ___________________________,2010. E-Pass and Defendants 12/13 19 are to submit any responsive documents no later than _______________________,2010. 4. Defendants in this action shall serve a copy of this order on defendants 20 in the underlying actions by 11/22/2010. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

DATED:

11/18

, 2010

S DISTRICT TE C TA Hon Magistrate Judge Edward E. Chen

RT U O

UNIT ED

S

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDERS IN UNDERLYING ACTIONS SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO PRODUCTION IN THE INSTANT - CASE 3:09-CV-05967-EMC

A

C

LI

FO

dwar Judge E

d M. Ch

en

R NIA

D RDERE S SO O IED IT I DIF AS MO

NO

RT

H