Innospan Corp v. Intuit et al

Filing 233

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING INTUIT INC AND MINT SOFTWARE INC.'S REQUESTED DISCOVERY RELIEF re 226 Letter, filed by Mint Software Inc, Intuit. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 10/21/11. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

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]

9
10

Attorneys for Defendants and Counter-Claimants
INTUIT INC. and MINT SOFTWARE INC.

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MOUNTAIN VIEW

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

F ENWICK & W EST LLP

12
13
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
14
15
INNOSPAN CORP.,

Case No. C10-04422 WHA (JCS)

16
Plaintiff,
17
v.
18
19

AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER
GRANTING INTUIT INC. AND MINT
SOFTWARE INC.’S REQUESTED
DISCOVERY RELIEF

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

20
Defendants.
21
22
23

INTUIT INC. and MINT SOFTWARE
INC.,
Counter-Claimants,

24
25

v.

26

INNOSPAN CORP. and HONG-SEOK
KIM,

27

Counter-Defendants.

28
AMND. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
INTUIT’S REQUESTED DISCOVERY RELIEF

CASE NO. C10-04422 WHA (JCS)

1
2

ORDER
Before the Court are the Letters Requesting Discovery Relief filed by Defendants Intuit

3

Inc. and Mint Software Inc. (collectively, “Intuit”) on October 7, 2011 (Dkt. # 214) and October

4

13, 2011 (Dkt. # 225), respectively.

5

Having considered Intuit’s Letters Requesting Discovery Relief, the Declarations of

6

Joseph S. Belichick and Rodger R. Cole in support thereof, accompanying exhibits, the record in

7

this action, and all other papers submitted and arguments made by the parties,

8
9
10

THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS THAT Intuit’s Requested Discovery Relief is
GRANTED as follows:
1.

28
By October __, 2011, 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 28 2011, Plaintiff must serve fully complete, detailed, and verified
__,
amended responses to Mint’s Interrogatory Nos. 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.

16

3.

17

JCS

Intuit’s Third Set of Requests for Admission Nos. 115-254 are deemed admitted
by Plaintiff because of its failure to serve timely and adequate answers in full
compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36. ALTERNATIVELY: By October __, 2011,
Plaintiff must serve further detailed answers to Intuit’s Third Set of Requests for
Admission in full compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36.

11

MOUNTAIN VIEW

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

F ENWICK & W EST LLP

12
13
14
15

18
19

JCS

28
By October __, 2011, Plaintiff must serve fully complete amended responses to
Intuit’s Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 108-123, confirming whether
28
any paper document exist and producing all such paper documents (by October __,
2011),. and specifically obtaining from third parties as required and producing all
corporate and financial documents responsive to Nos. 121, 122, and 123 (by
October __, 2011); provided that the obligation of production shall not require
Plaintiff to actually create or prepare hitherto non-existing documents.

5.

28
By October __, 2011, the parties must instruct DriveSavers as follows:

4.

20
21
22
23
24

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.

25
26
27
28

AMND. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
INTUIT’S REQUESTED DISCOVERY RELIEF

1

CASE NO. C10-04422 WHA (JCS)

1

C.

The results of the Narrowly Defined Privileged Screen will then be
provided to Plaintiff’s attorney. Within one week of receipt thereof,
Plaintiff’s attorney must review the documents captured by the Narrowly
Defined Privileged Screen and release any non-privileged documents to
Intuit. Non-privileged documents captured by the Narrowly Defined
Privilege Screen, include but are not limited to, any documents involving
third parties resulting in waiver of the privilege, or any other documents
that do not meet the privilege standard on their face. However, Plaintiff
shall not be required to create any privilege log of any privileged
documents withheld based on the Narrowly Defined Privileged Screen in
connection with the further production of documents pursuant to this
Paragraph 5.

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 by
DriveSavers without delay 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 (Dkt. # 35).

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
production process outlined in this Paragraph 5 will be followed for such
new terms and the Narrowly Defined Privileged Screen regarding such new
terms.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

14

6.

15
16
17

7.
JCS

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 waiving any applicable
privileges or protections and producing all of the identified documents to Intuit.
Plaintiff must show cause within one week why Plaintiff and its counsel should
not have to pay attorneys’ fees in the amount of at least $33,000 to Intuit for
Plaintiff’s discovery noncompliance.
S

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

10/21
Dated: ___________________, 2011

Spero
seph C.
______________________________________
Judge Jo
Hon. Joseph C. Spero
ER
United States Magistrate CJudge
N
F

NO

19

RT
U
O

18

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

R NIA

13

UNIT
ED

H

LI

RT

21

A

MOUNTAIN VIEW

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

F ENWICK & W EST LLP

12

FO

11

D IS T IC T O
R

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AMND. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
INTUIT’S REQUESTED DISCOVERY RELIEF

2

CASE NO. C10-04422 WHA (JCS)

1

Exhibit A

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

MOUNTAIN VIEW

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

F ENWICK & W EST LLP

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

New Terms
*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*

24
25
26
27
28
AMND. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
INTUIT’S REQUESTED DISCOVERY RELIEF

3

CASE NO. C10-04422 WHA (JCS)

1

Exhibit B

2

“Narrowly Defined Privileged Terms”

3
4
5

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

6
7
8
9
10
11

MOUNTAIN VIEW

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

F ENWICK & W EST LLP

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AMND. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
INTUIT’S REQUESTED DISCOVERY RELIEF

4

CASE NO. C10-04422 WHA (JCS)