Davis v. Electronic Arts, Inc.

Filing 92

ORDER re 88 November 4, 2011 Joint Discovery Letter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 11/16/2011. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
MICHAEL E. DAVIS, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

No. C-10-03328 RS (DMR)
ORDER ON NOVEMBER 4, 2011 JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER

v.

14

ELECTRONIC ARTS INC,

15

Defendant.
___________________________________/

16
17

Before the court is the November 4, 2011 joint letter submitted by Plaintiffs Michael E.

18

Davis, et al. and Defendant Electronic Arts, Inc. (“EA”) setting forth the parties’ discovery dispute.

19

[Docket No. 88.] The court conducted a hearing on November 16, 2011. Following the hearing, the

20

parties participated in a court-ordered meet and confer session in the courthouse. This Order

21

summarizes the rulings made by the court on the record during the November 16, 2011 hearing and

22

the parties’ agreements that were placed on the record following their meet and confer session.

23

I.

24

Requests for the Production of Documents
Defendant is ordered to search the following additional document collections for documents

25

responsive to Request for the Production of Documents (“RFPs”) Nos. 33, 34, and 82 and to produce

26

such documents to Plaintiff. Defendant’s search shall be consistent with the parties’ agreement that

27

was placed on the record following the parties’ meet and confer session.

28

1

1.

2

Defendant is ordered to search its design databases for each year’s games for the
years 2001 through 2009.

3

2.

4

Defendant is ordered to search the current version of its website, including chat
rooms and blogs, for postings by game designers that are responsive to the RFPs.

5

3.

Defendant is ordered to search marketing materials in its possession, custody, and/or

6

control for responsive documents, including documents containing descriptions

7

and/or discussions of individual player characters and/or possible modifications of

8

individual player characters.

9

4.

11

Chiang for responsive documents.
II.

12

Requests for Admissions
Defendant is ordered to amend its responses to each of Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions

13

(“RFAs”) to remove the qualification that Defendant’s responses are being made solely for the

14

purposes of its anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike and Motion to Dismiss.

15

Defendant is ordered to amend its response to RFA No. 11. Defendant shall set forth a fair,

16

common sense definition of the term “based upon” in its response and provide a response to the

17

RFA using that definition.

18

III.

detailed response to the interrogatory which addresses the 2001-2009 versions of the game.

23
24

Dated: November 16, 2011

25

D

RDERE

OO
IT IS S

NO

DONNA M. RYU nna M. Ryu
United States ge Do
Jud Magistrate Judge

RT

26

ER

H

27
28

2

R NIA

S

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RT
U
O

22

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

FO

21

LI

20

Defendant is ordered to amend its response to Interrogatory No. 8. Defendant shall provide a

A

19

Interrogatory No. 8

UNIT
ED

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Defendant is ordered to search the records of custodians Joel Linzner and Steven

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C