Innospan Corp v. Intuit et al
Filing
212
DISCOVERY ORDER re 204 Letter filed by Innospan Corp, 197 MOTION for Discovery Plaintiff's Discovery Joint Letter filed by Innospan Corp, 207 Letter filed by Mint Software Inc, Intuit. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 10/3/11. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2011)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
Case No. C10-04422 WHA (JCS)
INNOSPAN CORP,
8
Plaintiff(s),
9
DISCOVERY ORDER [Docket Nos. 197,
204, and 207]
v.
INTUIT INC., ET. AL.,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Defendant(s).
___________________________________/
12
13
The Court received three more Joint Letters in the space of nine days: September 6, 2011
14
(docket no. 197), September 15, 2011 (docket no. 204) and again on September 15, 2011 (docket no.
15
207).
16
On September 30, 2011, a telephonic hearing was held on these Joint Letters. Brian Song,
17
counsel for Plaintiff, appeared. Rodger Cole, counsel for Defendants Intuit and Mint Software,
18
appeared.
19
For the reasons stated on the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
20
1.
Counsel for Plaintiff WITHDREW docket number 197 on the record.
21
2.
All relief sought by Plaintiff on docket number 204 is DENIED for the reasons stated
22
23
at the hearing.
3.
For the reasons stated at the hearing, the application by Defendants Intuit and Mint
24
Software in docket number 207 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART,
25
as follows:
26
a.
The request to exclude any reference or proof regarding Mr. Yi or Rivermark
27
Dental is DENIED. The Court’s previous order only imposed the following
28
exclusion: “[Plaintiff] will be barred from using Yi, or anyone from any of
1
Yi’s companies . . . as witnesses in this case. In addition . . . Plaintiff will be
2
barred from using Lee and Rivermark Dental as witnesses in this case.”
3
b.
On or before October 4, 2011, Plaintiff shall produce all documents listed on
4
the August 18 privilege screen list, except for privileged and work product
5
communications between Mr. Song or his associate and Mr. Kim. A privilege
6
log of all such withheld documents shall be served by October 7, 2011.
7
c.
On or before October 7, 2011, Plaintiff shall produce all documents listed on
8
his privilege logs in this case for which he has asserted a privilege based on
9
communication with an accountant. By such date, Plaintiff shall also produce
all documents listed on his privilege logs which were communicated to
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
persons not within the attorney client privilege – as identified by the Pink
12
highlighting on Mr Belichick’s declaration (Docket 207-1) exhibits 18-22.
13
d.
On or before October 7, 2011, Plaintiff shall serve new privilege logs
14
correcting the following errors:
15
(1)
Plaintiff shall describe the subject matter of the withheld
16
communications in sufficient detail for the parties to discern the
17
privileged nature of the communications (Belichick declaration Red
18
highlighting, exhibits 18-22).
19
(2)
Plaintiff shall specify all persons receiving the documents withheld
20
(Belichick declaration Orange highlighting, exhibits 18-22); Plaintiff
21
need not specify the individual at the Morgan Lewis law firm to whom
22
a privileged communication was sent, or from whom such a
23
communication was received.
24
(3)
Plaintiff shall separately identify and log all documents, including
25
attachments (Belichick declaration, Green highlighting, exhibits 18-
26
22).
27
28
2
1
(4)
Plaintiff shall produce for in camera inspection all documents
2
withheld under the spousal privilege (Belichick declaration Blue
3
highlighting, Exhibits 18-22).
4
e.
All other relief is DENIED.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
9
_________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Dated: October 3, 2011
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?