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)

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