Innospan Corp v. Intuit et al

Filing 176

DISCOVERY ORDER re 167 Joint Letter filed by Innospan Corp. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 7/1/11. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2011)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

INNOSPAN CORP,

7

Case No. C10-04422 WHA (JCS)

Plaintiff(s),
DISCOVERY ORDER [Docket No. 167]

8
9

INTUIT INC.ET.AL,
Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

v.

12
13
14

On June 17, 2011, a Joint Letter re: Plaintiff’s Discovery Complaints Against Defendants
was filed (the “Joint Letter”).
On July 1, 2011, a hearing was held on the Joint Letter. Brian Song, counsel for Plaintiff,

15

appeared. Rodger Cole, counsel for Defendant Intuit and Mint Software, appeared. Margaret

16

Branick-Abilla, counsel for Defendant Shasta Ventures, appeared.

17

For the reasons stated on the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

18

1.

19
20

is DENIED.
2.

21
22

3.

Motion to compel “missing email communications” tracing the change to the Fourth

Motion to compel “missing key emails with” Francis/Coneybeer is DENIED. There
is no evidence that any such emails exist.

4.

25
26

There is no evidence that any such emails exist.

MSI logo is DENIED. There is no evidence that any such emails exist.

23
24

Motion to compel “missing email communications” between A. Patzer and J. Putorti

Motion to compel a search for evidence of actual confusion is DENIED without
prejudice to serving a Request for Production of such information.

5.

Motion to compel production of “missing” MSI business plans, marketing plans, etc.

27

is DENIED without prejudice. These documents were not even due at the time of the

28

Joint letter.

1

6.

Motion to compel production of “missing” communications with outside PR or

2

marketing agencies is DENIED without prejudice. These documents were not even

3

due at the time of the Joint letter.

4

7.

Motion to compel “missing” documents concerning MSI’s intellectual property

5

claims against third parties is DENIED without prejudice to serving a Request for

6

Production of such information.

7

8.

Motion to compel production of “missing” trademark and domain name searches is

8

DENIED without prejudice. These documents were not even due at the time of the

9

Joint letter.
9.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

domain is DENIED. There is no evidence that any further documents exist.
10.

13
14

Motion to compel document relating to searches regarding the rights to the mint.com

Defendants have produced a privilege log. Plaintiff shall produce a privilege log no
later than July 8, 2011.

11.

The motion to compel defendants to conduct a more thorough search is DENIED

15

except to the extend already agreed by counsel, and (1) within 10 days Defendants

16

shall submit a declaration regarding the current location of Mr. Putorti’s former

17

mint.com laptop, and on the method used to search Mr. Patzer’s computer.

18

12.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The motion to provide Mr. Patzer for an additional deposition is DENIED.

20
21
22
23

Dated: July 1, 2011
_________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28

2