Antonick v. Electronic Arts, Inc.,

Filing 75

STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL. Motions terminated: 67 MOTION to Compel Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1-6 and 8; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Electronic Arts, Inc. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte on 1/17/2012. (kns, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
Robert B. Carey (Pro Hac Vice)
Leonard W. Aragon (Pro Hac Vice)
11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

11

THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC
Stuart M. Paynter (226147)
Jennifer L. Murray (Pro Hac Vice)
1200 G Street N.W., Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

12

Attorneys for Plaintiff Robin Antonick

7
8
9
10

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

ROBIN ANTONICK, an Illinois Citizen,

Case No. 3:11-cv-01543-CRB (EDL)

17
Plaintiff,

18
19
20

v.
ELECTRONIC ARTS INC., a California
corporation,

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL

21
22

Defendant.

23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL; CASE NO. 3:11-cv-01543-CRB (EDL)
613630.01

1
2

WHEREAS on January 10, 2012, the Court held hearing on Plaintiff’s December 2, 2011
Motion to Compel;

3
4

WHEREAS on January 6, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to compel responses to certain
interrogatories;

5
6

WHEREAS the Court having considered the papers and argument requested that the parties
submit a stipulation and proposed order memorializing the Court’s rulings;

7
8

WHEREAS the parties have met and conferred and agreed to the entry of this proposed
order;

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

10

Defendant shall produce all source code, source code documentation and development

11

materials in its possession for any John Madden Football or Madden NFL videogame that is listed

12

in its Fourth Amended Response to Interrogatory No. 1 and was released on or before January 1,

13

1996;

14

For any versions for which Defendant does not produce source code, Defendant’s Counsel

15

shall certify in writing that a diligent search was conducted and that the source code cannot be

16

found;

17

Within ninety (90) days of receiving a complete production in response to this order,

18

Plaintiff shall prepare and serve amended responses to the interrogatories subject to Defendant’s

19

January 6, 2012 Motion to Compel based on Plaintiff’s analysis to date;

20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s January 6, 2012 Motion to Compel is hereby

21

withdrawn without prejudice to re-file following Plaintiff’s service of the amended interrogatory

22

responses described above. Plaintiff shall not move to compel any additional source code for any

23

title released after January 1, 1996 prior to the service of the amended interrogatory responses

24

described above;

25

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall provide an amended response to

26

Interrogatory No. 3 that describes in detail the approaches, methods, safeguards, and processes

27

used to ensure independent development of any John Madden Football or Madden NFL videogame
1

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL; CASE NO. 3:11-CV-01543-CRB (EDL)
613630.01

1

listed therein, which was released on or before January 1, 1996. Such amended response shall be

2

served within FOURTEEN (14) days of the entry of this order.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall produce all documents in response to

4

Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 12 that relate to the approaches, methods, safeguards, and

5

processes used to ensure independent development of any John Madden Football or Madden NFL

6

videogame listed therein, which was released on or before January 1, 1996. Such documents shall

7

be served within FOURTEEN (14) days of the entry of this order

8
9
10

Pursuant to General Order No. 45 section 10(b), R. Adam Lauridsen, the filer of this
stipulation hereby attests that Stuart M. Paynter concurs in the filing of this stipulation.
DATED:

January 13, 2012

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP

11
12

By: /s/ R. Adam Lauridsen
R. ADAM LAURIDSEN
Attorneys for Defendant
ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.

13
14
15

DATED:

January 13, 2012

THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC

16
17
By: /s/ Stuart M. Paynter
STUART M. PAYNTER
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ROBIN ANTONICK

18
19
20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 17, 2012
DATED: _____________________

_________________________________
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte
Northern District of California

24
25
26
27
28
2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL; CASE NO. 3:11-CV-01543-CRB (EDL)