Miller v. Facebook, Inc. et al

Filing 89

Statement of Non-Opposition re 85 MOTION for Protective Order filed byFacebook, Inc.. (Related document(s) 85 ) (Avalos, Julio) (Filed on 11/23/2010)

Miller v. Facebook, Inc. et al

Doc. 89

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I. NEEL CHATTERJEE (STATE BAR NO. 173985) [e-mail] JULIO C. AVALOS (STATE BAR NO. 255350) [e-mail] ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] THOMAS J. GRAY (STATE BAR NO. 191411) [e-mail] ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1600 Irvine, CA 92614-2558 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 949-567 6710 Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

DANIEL M. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC. and YAO WEI YEO, Defendants.

Case No. CV-10-00264 (WHA) DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.'S CONSENT TO ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER

OHS West:261041212.1

FACEBOOK'S CONSENT TO ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO.: 5:07-CV-01389-RS

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendant Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook") does not object to the entry of the protective order attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of same. As Plaintiff recognizes, Facebook has actively negotiated the provisions of that order with Plaintiff's counsel, Brian Hancock. Facebook does object, however, to Plaintiff's inappropriate and premature use of motion practice. This Court's local rules--as well as basic norms of professional courtesy--required counsel to at least telephone, e-mail or in some way correspond with opposing counsel prior to filing this motion. The last correspondence between counsel took place on November 11, 2010, when the parties exchanged substantive comments on a provision of the joint protective order related to source code inspection logs. Declaration of Julio Avalos ("Avalos Decl.") ¶¶ 9-10. Following those communications, Plaintiff's counsel did not call, e-mail, or communicate with defense counsel in any way prior to filing his November 18, 2010 motion for court intervention. Id. ¶ 10. At no time did Plaintiff's counsel request a meet and confer of any kind, let alone hint that he was planning on involving the court in this process.1 ¶¶ 4-10. The Court's intervention could and should have been avoided. Id.

Dated: November 23, 2010

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

/s/ Julio C. Avalos Julio C. Avalos Attorneys for Defendant, FACEBOOK, INC.

Plaintiff similarly jumped the gun on his concurrently-filed letter brief moving to compel further discovery responses. The parties have long understood that the entry of an appropriate protective order was a prerequisite for the production of sensitive information. Facebook has represented that it would supplement its discovery responses following the entry of such an order, subject to Facebook's substantive objections to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Since the onset of the parties' protective order negotiations in early October, Plaintiff has never so much as requested a meet and confer on Facebook's substantive objections to his discovery requests and no such meet and confer has been held. Avalos Decl. ¶ 10.
1

OHS West:261041212.1

-1-

FACEBOOK'S CONSENT TO ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO.: 5:07-CV-01389-RS