Innospan Corp v. Intuit et al

Filing 219

STIPULATION AND ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS FROM PLAINTIFF. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 10/11/11. (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

RODGER R. COLE (CSB NO. 178865)
[e-mail]
SONGMEE L. CONNOLLY (CSB NO. 228555)
[e-mail]
JOSEPH S. BELICHICK (CSB NO. 229371)
[e-mail]
SEAN S. WIKNER (CSB NO. 268319)
[e-mail]
MOLLY MELCHER (CSB NO. 272950)
[e-mail]
FENWICK & WEST LLP
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, California 94041
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants and Counter-Claimants
INTUIT INC. and MINT SOFTWARE INC.

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

LAW
AT

MOUNTAI N VI EW

ATTO RNEY S

F ENWICK & W ES T LLP

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

14
15

INNOSPAN CORP.,
Plaintiff,

16
17
18
19

v.
INTUIT INC.; MINT SOFTWARE INC.;
SHASTA VENTURES GP, LLC; and
DOES 1-20,

Case No. C10-04422 WHA (JCS)
STIPULATED AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND
DOCUMENTS FROM PLAINTIFF
Dept:
Judge:

G, 15th Floor
Honorable Joseph C. Spero

Defendants.

20
21
22

INTUIT INC. and MINT SOFTWARE
INC.,

23

Counter-Claimants,

24
25
26
27

v.
INNOSPAN CORP. and HONG-SEOK
KIM,
Counter-Defendants.

28
STIP. & ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND
DOCUMENTS FROM PLAINTIFF

CASE NO. C10-04422 WHA (JCS)

1

STIPULATION

2

WHEREAS, on August 16, 2011, Defendants Intuit Inc. (“Intuit”) served Plaintiff

3

Innospan Corp. (“Plaintiff”) with a Third Set of Interrogatories and a Fourth Set of Requests for

4

Production of Documents.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

LAW
AT

MOUNTAI N VI EW

ATTO RNEY S

F ENWICK & W ES T LLP

12
13

WHEREAS, on August 16, 2011, Mint Software Inc. (“Mint”) served Plaintiff with a First
Set of Interrogatories;
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2011, Plaintiff served its responses to the above-noted sets
of discovery requests;
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2011, the Intuit Defendants sent a detailed meet-andconfer letter to Plaintiff regarding its discovery responses;
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2011, Plaintiff sent a meet-and-confer letter and served
amended discovery responses;
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2011, the Intuit Defendants sent another meet-and-confer

14

letter to Plaintiff regarding its discovery responses, including its amended responses, and

15

requested an in-person meet-and-confer on September 24, 2011;

16
17
18

WHEREAS, on September 21, 2011, Plaintiff served additional amended discovery
responses;
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2011, the parties conducted an in-person meet-and-confer

19

regarding Plaintiff’s and the Intuit Defendants’ discovery responses, at which time the parties

20

agreed to further respond about the issues raised by Friday, September 30, 2011.

21

WHEREAS, on September 28, 2011, the Intuit Defendants provided Plaintiff with a

22

summary of the outstanding discovery issues, and requested a response by September 30, 2011,

23

and amended responses by October 3, 2011.

24

WHEREAS, on September 30, 2011, the Intuit Defendants responded to the alleged

25

deficiencies with Intuit’s discovery responses raised by Plaintiff at the in-person meet-and-confer,

26

providing further information in response to most issues and confirming that the remaining

27

responses were sufficient.

28

WHEREAS, Plaintiff, lacking resources, did not respond to the outstanding meet-andSTIP. & ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND
DOCUMENTS FROM PLAINTIFF

1

CASE NO. C10-04422 WHA (JCS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

LAW
AT

MOUNTAI N VI EW

ATTO RNEY S

F ENWICK & W ES T LLP

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

confer issues on September 30 or October 3, 2011;
WHEREAS, on October 3, 2011, the Intuit Defendant again asked Plaintiff to respond to
the outstanding meet-and-confer issues;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff said that it would respond regarding the outstanding meet-andconfer issues by 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 4, 2011, but failed to do so, lacking any resources
to do so;
WHEREAS, the deadline for filing any Joint Letters to compel further discovery
responses and documents is Friday, October 7, 2011
WHEREAS, the Intuit Defendants have sufficiently established the right to compel further
amended discovery responses and additional documents from Plaintiff, and Plaintiff has agreed to
provide further amended discovery responses and additional documents but has requested
additional time to do so; and
WHEREAS, to avoid burdening the parties and the Court with unnecessary motion
practice.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties through their counsel
of record that:
1.

By October 14, 2011 at 5:00 p.m., Plaintiff must serve fully complete, detailed,
and verified amended responses to Intuit’s Interrogatory Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,
22, and 25, including identification of all supporting evidence, whether
documentary (by bates number) or testimonial (by witness name); provided that
the identification of testimonial evidence shall not require “script”-like description.

2.

By October 14, 2011 at 5:00 p.m., Plaintiff must serve fully complete, detailed,
and verified amended responses to Mint’s Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 22, including identification of supporting
evidence where applicable, whether documentary (by bates number) or testimonial
(by witness name); provided that the identification of testimonial evidence shall
not require “script”-like description.

3.

By October 14, 2011 at 5:00 p.m., Plaintiff must serve fully complete amended
responses to Intuit’s Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 108-123,
confirming whether any paper document exist and producing all such paper
documents (by October 14, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.), and specifically obtaining from
third parties as required and producing all corporate and financial documents
responsive to Nos. 121, 122, and 123 (by October 14, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.).provided
that the obligation of production shall not require Plaintiff to actually create or
prepare hitherto non-existing documents and provided further that the cost of

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIP. & ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND
DOCUMENTS FROM PLAINTIFF

2

CASE NO. C10-04422 WHA (JCS)

1

requesting production of documents from a third party is not unreasonably
oppressive

2
3

4.

4

By Monday, October 10, 2011 at 5:00 p.m., the parties must instruct DriveSavers
as follows:
A.

Search terms, attached hereto as Exhibit A, tailored to capture the
documents sought by Intuit will be run against the first and second batches
of unfiltered data of Plaintiff (the “Responsiveness Filter”).

B.

A second set of search terms designed to capture any privileged documents
(the “Narrowly Defined Privileged Screen”) will then be run against the
data set obtained by running the Responsiveness Filter. The Narrowly
Defined Privileged Screen search terms are attached hereto as Exhibit B.

C.

The results of the Narrowly Defined Privileged Screen will then be
provided to Plaintiff’s attorney. Plaintiff’s attorney then shall review and
release any non-privileged documents to Defendant but shall not be
required to create any other privilege log.

D.

Any documents contained in the data set obtained by running the
Responsiveness Filter that are not captured by the Narrowly Defined
Privileged Screen will be bates numbered and concurrently produced to all
parties of record for review; provided that any mistakenly released
privileged documents may be addressed pursuant to Paragraph 11 of the
Stipulated Protective Order

E.

Intuit is entitled to add new search terms to Exhibit A with Plaintiff’s
consent, which will not be unreasonably withheld. If this occurs, the same
process outlined in this Paragraph 4 will be followed for such new terms
and the Narrowly Defined Privileged Screen regarding such new terms.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

LAW
AT

MOUNTAI N VI EW

ATTO RNEY S

F ENWICK & W ES T LLP

12
13
14
15
16
17

5.

Because the Narrowly Defined Privileged Screen documents are protected under
Attorney-Client communication, Attorney Work Product, and/or Trial Preparation
privileges, none of which Defendants would be entitled to receive under the
normal circumstances and the parties desire efficient discovery practices rather
than taking advantages of the opponent’s lack of resources, Plaintiff is no longer
required to create and deliver any further privilege logs.

6.

In lieu of complying with Paragraphs 3(c) and 3(d) of the Discovery Order dated
October 3, 2011 (Dkt. # 212), Plaintiff has the option of instructing the Third Party
Vendor to deliver the First Batch documents excluding any documents filtered out
by applying the same Narrowly Defined Privilege Terms..

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIP. & ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND
DOCUMENTS FROM PLAINTIFF

3

CASE NO. C10-04422 WHA (JCS)

1
2

Dated: October 10, 2011

FENWICK & WEST LLP

3
By:

4
5

Attorneys for Defendants
INTUIT INC. AND MINT SOFTWARE INC.

6
7

/s/ Rodger R. Cole
Rodger R. Cole

Dated: October 10, 2011

LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN SONG

8
By:

9
10

/s/ Brian H. Song
Brian H. Song

Attorneys for Plaintiff
INNOSPAN CORP.

11

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45

13

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X.B., I hereby attest that I have obtained

14

concurrence of the above noted signatories as indicated by a “conformed” signature (/s/) within

15

this e-filed document.

16

DATED: October 6, 2011

17

By:

/s/ Rodger R. Cole
Rodger R. Cole

18
19

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. TES DISTRICT
C
10/11
Dated: ___________________, 2011

RT

ER

H

24

Judge Jo

25

Spero

FO

seph C.

NO

23

LI

22

R NIA

______________________________________
Hon. Joseph C. Spero
United States Magistrate Judge

A

21

TA

RT
U
O

S

20

UNIT
ED

LAW
AT

MOUNTAI N VI EW

ATTO RNEY S

F ENWICK & W ES T LLP

12

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

26
27
28
STIP. & ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND
DOCUMENTS FROM PLAINTIFF

4

CASE NO. C10-04422 WHA (JCS)

1

Exhibit A

2

New Terms

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

LAW
AT

MOUNTAI N VI EW

ATTO RNEY S

F ENWICK & W ES T LLP

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

*Venture* /2 *capital*
fund*
*Pequot*
*Ikanos*
*VDSL*
*Marvell*
*FlexLight*
*Young* /2 *Kim*
Loan*
Mortgage*
*financ*
*cafeo*
*cuteynail*
*i-nail*
*Pereira*
*Armando*
understand*
*gpon*
*Infineon*
*Conexant*
*kahng*

25
26
27
28
STIP. & ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND
DOCUMENTS FROM PLAINTIFF

5

CASE NO. C10-04422 WHA (JCS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Exhibit B
“Narrowly Defined Privileged Terms”
briansong, brian song, brianhsong, brian h song, sujung.park, @lawyersong.com, 188662, bsong,
bhsong, sujung, sujungpark, sujung park, william levin, bill Levin, marquis,
[e-mail], williamlevin, [e-mail], marquis-ip.com, lawyersong.com,
brookstone-law.com

7
8
9
10
11

LAW
AT

MOUNTAI N VI EW

ATTO RNEY S

F ENWICK & W ES T LLP

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIP. & ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER
DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND
DOCUMENTS FROM PLAINTIFF

6

CASE NO. C10-04422 WHA (JCS)