Davis v. Electronic Arts, Inc.

Filing 161

ORDER re January 28, 2016 Discovery Hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 01/25/2016. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL E. DAVIS, et al., Case No. 10-cv-03328-RS (DMR) Plaintiffs, 8 v. ORDER RE JANUARY 28, 2016 DISCOVERY HEARING 9 10 ELECTRONIC ARTS INC., Defendant. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 The court has reviewed the parties’ November 23, 2015 and December 30, 2015 joint 13 discovery letters, which are set for hearing on January 28, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. By no later than 14 5:00 p.m. on January 26, 2016, Plaintiffs shall submit the definitions of the terms “HISTORICAL 15 NFL PLAYER CHARACTERS” and “CHARACTERISTICS” that they provided in Plaintiffs’ 16 first set of requests for admission to Defendant. 17 Lead counsel for the parties shall appear at the hearing on January 28, 2016. Following the 18 hearing, lead counsel shall be prepared to meet and confer in the courthouse regarding any and all 19 issues that come up in the hearing, and shall be prepared to devote the entire day, if necessary, to 20 meeting and conferring. In addition, counsel shall come prepared to meet and confer regarding 21 ESI, search terms, and custodians using the District’s Guidelines for the Discovery of 22 Electronically Stored Information and Checklist for guidance. 23 Counsel shall also come prepared to discuss a potential stipulation(s) regarding damages. 24 For example, Defendant has requested information that they argue is relevant to the value of 25 Plaintiffs’ names, images, and likenesses. Plaintiffs have taken the position that, inter alia, such 26 information is not relevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this case, which suggests that 27 Plaintiffs do not intend to use such information for damages or for any other purpose. Therefore, 28 the parties may benefit from discussing a stipulation regarding what the parties will and will not argue in this case about damages, which could in turn affect the scope of discovery. 2 S RT ER H 8 9 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 R NIA . Ryu onna M Judge D NO 7 FO 6 ED ______________________________________ ORDER T IS SO IDonna M. Ryu United States Magistrate Judge LI 5 Dated: January 25, 2016 UNIT ED 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. RT U O 3 S DISTRICT TE C TA A 1 N F D IS T IC T O R C

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?