In Re Mesa Power Group, LLC

Filing 11

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR RESPONSE TO SUBPOENA. The time for Pattern Energy to move to quash or otherwise respond to subpoena issued by Mesa power be extended until 3/12/12. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 3/12/12. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2012)

1

5

ERIC J. AMDURSKY (S.B. # 180288)
[e-mail]
ANNA-ROSE MATHIESON (S.B. # 231770)
[e-mail]
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

6

Attorneys for Pattern Energy Group LP

7

[Additional counsel listed on signature page]

2
3
4

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12
13

In Re Application of

Case No. CV 11-5510 (JCS)

14

MESA POWER GROUP, LLC,

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN
ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR
RESPONSE TO SUBPOENA AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

15
16
17
18
19

Applicant,
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 For Judicial
Assistance in Obtaining Evidence from
PATTERN ENERGY GROUP LP; MIKE
GARLAND; JOHN CALAWAY;
HUNTER ARMISTEAD; and DAVID
PARQUET For Use in a Foreign and
International Proceeding.

(Local Rule 6-2)

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER
EXTENDING DEADLINE
NO. CV 11-5510 (JCS)

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the

2

parties hereto through their respective attorneys of record that, if the Court approves, the deadline

3

for Pattern Energy Group LP (“Pattern”) to respond to the subpoena served on it by Mesa Power

4

Group, LLC (“Mesa”) in the above-captioned case be extended as set forth below. The

5

stipulation is based on the following:

6

1.

This Court approved Mesa’s “Ex Parte Application for Judicial Assistance in

7

Obtaining Evidence for Use in a Foreign and International Proceeding Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

8

§ 1782” on November 30, 2011. As Mesa requested, the Court entered an Order authorizing

9

Mesa to serve subpoenas on Pattern and four officers/employees of Pattern (collectively,

10

“Discovery Respondents”). Nov. 30, 2011 Order (Dkt. #6) ¶ 2. The Court further ordered that

11

the Discovery Respondents “shall each produce the requested documents within twenty-one (21)

12

days of service.” Order ¶ 3. The Court specified that its Order was “without prejudice to the

13

rights of the Discovery Respondents to quash the subpoenas issued.” Order ¶ 7.

14

2.

Mesa served Pattern with a subpoena on February 17, 2012. Pattern’s response to

15

the subpoena was thus due March 9, 2012. Mesa served Hunter Armistead, an officer of Pattern,

16

on February 24, 2012.

17

3.

The parties are engaging in a meet-and-confer process in an effort to resolve

18

various objections to the subpoena. Pattern and Mesa had a meet and confer via telephone on

19

March 2, and an in-person meet and confer on March 7, 2012.

20

4.

Pattern originally intended to file a motion to quash the subpoena on March 2. A

21

motion to quash a subpoena must be “timely” filed, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A), and a March 2

22

filing would have been seven days before the deadline for response to the subpoena. In the

23

conference on the morning of March 2, however, the parties agreed that Pattern should delay

24

filing the motion to quash until March 9, 2012, to allow further time to meet and confer regarding

25

the subpoena requests.

26

5.

In the March 7th meet and confer, Pattern agreed to collect additional information

27

requested by Mesa to determine whether the scope of the subpoena could be narrowed, and Mesa

28

consented to extend the date for Pattern to respond to the subpoena until Monday, March 12.
STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER
EXTENDING DEADLINE
NO. CV 11-5510 (JCS)

1

6.

Although progress has been made, the parties may still need additional time after

2

Monday to determine if any compromise can be reached with respect to the scope of the

3

subpoena.

4

7.

If the parties do reach a compromise, they would need additional time to put in

5

place a stipulated protective order governing confidential material, patterned on the Northern

6

District of California’s Model “Stipulated Protective Order for Litigation Involving Patents,

7

Highly Sensitive Confidential Information and/or Trade Secrets.” In addition, Pattern may need

8

additional time to collect, review, and produce the documents.

9

8.

The parties thus respectfully request that the Court grant their request to extend the

10

time for Pattern to move to quash or otherwise respond to the subpoena until March 12, 2012.

11

The parties further request that, to facilitate the meet-and-confer process and potential amicable

12

resolution of this conflict, the Court order that the parties can jointly agree to future extensions of

13

the deadline for any Discovery Respondents without need for court order or stipulation under

14

Local Rule 6-1. In accordance with N.D. Cal. General Order No. 45, Section X, the filer of this

15

document hereby attests that the concurrence to the filing of the document has been obtained from

16

the other signatory hereto.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER
EXTENDING DEADLINE
NO. CV 11-5510 (JCS)

1
2
3

Dated: March 9, 2012
ERIC J. AMDURSKY
ANNA-ROSE MATHIESON
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111

4
5
6

By: /s/ Anna-Rose Mathieson
Anna-Rose Mathieson

7

Attorneys for Pattern Energy Group LP

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

ADAM BREZINE
BRYAN CAVE LP
560 Mission Street, 25th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
By: /s/ Adam Brezine
Adam Brezine
Attorney for Mesa Power Group, LLC

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER
EXTENDING DEADLINE
NO. CV 11-5510 (JCS)

1
2
3

ORDER [PROPOSED]
Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS ORDERED that the time for Pattern Energy Group LP to

4

move to quash or otherwise respond to the subpoena issued by Mesa Power Group, LLC be

5

extend until March 12, 2012, and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties can jointly agree

6

to future extensions of the deadlines for Discovery Respondents, and the parties need not seek

7

court order or file a stipulation for these future extensions.

8
12th
March
SIGNED on the _________ day of ________________________, 2012.

S

R NIA

FO

LI

ER

H

14

RT

13

________________________________________
THE HONORABLE JOSEPH C. SPERO
Magistrate Judge, United States District Court
Spero
for the Northern pDistrict of California
se h C.
Judge Jo
NO

12

UNIT
ED

11

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

10

A

9

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING
DEADLINE FOR SUBPOENA RESPONSE
NO. CV 11-5510 (JCS)