Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC v. Hotz et al

Filing 102

ORDER, by Judge Joseph C. Spero, signed 3/18/11,denying 100 George Hotz's Motion for Protective Order (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2011)

Download PDF
Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC v. Hotz et al Doc. 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. GEORGE HOTZ, Defendant(s). ___________________________________/ IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that George Hotz's Motion for Protective Order, filed on March 17, 2011, is DENIED. The Court ruled on these issues in an Order dated March 15, 2011, [docket no. 96]. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that before filing any discovery motion before this Court, the parties must comply with the following: 1. Lead trial counsel for both parties must meet and confer in person regarding the matter(s) at issue. This meeting shall occur after other efforts to resolve the dispute, such as telephone, e-mail, teleconference, or correspondence, have been unsuccessful. Once those efforts have proved unsuccessful, any party may demand a meeting of lead trial counsel to resolve a discovery matter. Such a meeting shall occur within ten (10) calendar days of the demand. The locations of the meetings shall alternate. The first meeting shall be at a location selected by counsel for Plaintiff(s). If there are any future disputes, the next such meeting shall be held at a location to be determined by counsel for Defendant(s), etc. 2. Within five (5) calendar days of the in-person meeting between lead trial counsel referred to above, the parties shall jointly file a detailed letter with the Court, not to exceed ten (10) pages without leave of Court, which will include the matters that UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT, Plaintiff(s), ORDER DENYING GEORGE HOTZ'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [Docket No. 100] Case No. C11-00167 SI ( JCS) United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3. remain in dispute, a detailed substantive description of each side's position on each such issue, and a description of each side's proposed compromise on each such issue. After the Court has received the joint letter, the Court will determine what future proceedings, if any, are necessary. In the event that the parties continue to be unable to resolve the matters regarding the timing and scope of discovery, the Court will consider what future actions are necessary. These actions may include the following: (1) sanctions against a party failing to cooperate in the discovery process and meet and confer in good faith, as required by this Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of this Court; and/or (2) requiring each party to attend the in-person, meet-andconfer sessions described above. The Court is not entering either of these matters as an Order of the Court at this time, and fully expects counsel to meet their obligations under this Order and under the Local Rules. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 18, 2011 _______________________________ JOSEPH C. SPERO United States Magistrate Judge 2

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?