Symantec Corporation v. Acronis, Inc

Filing 120

FURTHER ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEFS (Dkt. No. 113, 115). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 10/4/2012. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13

SYMANTEC CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17
18

v.

Case No.: 11-5310 EMC (JSC)
FURTHER ORDER RE: JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEFS (Dkt.
No. 113, 115)

ACRONIS CORPORATION,
Defendant.

19
20

Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Discovery Letter Brief regarding Plaintiff’s

21

request to compel certain discovery responses from Defendant and Defendant’s request to quash

22

Plaintiff’s objection to certain of Defendant’s experts. (Dkt. No. 113, 115.) The Court previously

23

ordered the parties to meet and confer in person on the disputes set forth in Docket No. 113.

24

The parties did so, and on the record before the Court on October 4, 2012 they set forth their

25

agreements as to most of the disputes.

26
27
28

The Court ruled on the remaining issues as follows.

1

First, Plaintiff shall have 10 hours over one day to take each inventor’s deposition. The

2

Court understands that the parties have agreed to the location and approximate date of these

3

depositions.

4

Second, the parties shall submit a Joint Discovery Letter with regard to Defendant’s

5

assertion that it does not have control over, and is not required to produce, fact witnesses

6

employed in Russia by a separate Acronis entity.

confer in person. The meet and confer shall occur in the Northern District of California unless

9

the parties agree otherwise. At the end of the meet and confer conference, and before any party

10

has departed, the parties shall draft a term sheet which sets forth their agreements and counsel

11
Northern District of California

Third, before any discovery dispute is submitted to this Court, the parties shall meet and

8

United States District Court

7

for each party shall sign the term sheet.

12

Finally, Defendant’s motion to quash Plaintiff’s objection to Defendant’s experts Michael

13

D. Edge and Michael T. Fenn is GRANTED. In light of these experts’ lack of regular practice in

14

the fields of backup and recovery and virtualization, Plaintiff has not met its burden of showing

15

that the risk of harm from disclosure of Protected Material to these experts outweighs

16

Defendant’s need to disclose the Protected Material to its experts. (Dkt. 89 at 12:25-28.)

17

This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 113 and 115.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: October 4, 2012
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2