Macy's Inc. et al v. Strategic Marks, LLC

Filing 107

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu re 102 , 103 Discovery Letter Briefs. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
MACYS INC AND MACYS.COM INC,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

No. C-11-06198 SC (DMR)
ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.

14

STRATEGIC MARKS INC, LLC,

15

Defendant.
___________________________________/

16
17

This dispute involves Plaintiffs Macy’s Inc. and Macys.com’s request for a protective order

18

to address allegedly objectionable behavior by Ellia Kassoff, the CEO of Defendant Strategic Marks

19

Inc., LLC. [Docket Nos. 102 (Pls.’ Letter), 103 (Def.’s Letter).] The parties attempted to resolve

20

the dispute by way of a stipulation and proposed order. They reached agreement on the terms of the

21

stipulation, but could not agree on who would be subject to those terms. Defendant insists on an

22

agreement that would apply equally to all parties. (Def.’s Letter 3.) Plaintiffs argue that they have

23

not engaged in any objectionable behavior and so should not be subject to an order “designed to put

24

a halt to Mr. Kassoff’s activities.” (Pls.’ Letter 2.) On June 17, 2013, in response to the court’s

25

order, Defendant submitted drafts of its proposed bilateral stipulation. [Docket No. 105.]

26

The court has reviewed the draft stipulations, and finds that the terms are reasonable. The

27

terms do not in any way imply that Plaintiffs have engaged in or intend to engage in objectionable

28

behavior. Nor do Plaintiffs assert that the terms will curtail them from actions they should be able to

1

take in order to prosecute their claims. Further, Defendant represented that it has granted its consent

2

for any officer(s) or employee(s) of Plaintiffs to attend any remaining depositions in this action.

3

Therefore, the court enters the following order:

4

1.

From this day forward, no officer(s) or employee(s) of any party may direct any

5

communication to any current officer(s) or employee(s) of any opposing party with

6

respect to any issue(s) relating to this litigation. All future communications between

7

opposing parties regarding this litigation shall be conducted solely by and through

8

respective counsel for the parties.

9

2.

In furtherance of the above, no officer(s) or employee(s) of Defendant may attend any
deposition taken during the remainder of this litigation, except as a deponent, without

11

prior written consent of Plaintiffs.

12

3.

Except as stated herein, the parties shall not discuss with a non-party any information

13

regarding or referencing the confidential mediation conducted by the parties before

14

mediator Mark LeHocky on June 5, 2013. This provision shall not preclude the

15

parties from divulging to non-parties the following: (a) the fact that the parties

16

conducted a mediation on June 5, 2013, (b) the identity of the mediator, and (c) the

17

fact that this litigation was not settled during the mediation.
This order terminates Docket Nos. 102 and 103.

21
22

Dated: June 18, 2013

ERED

ORD
T IS SO

I

u

NO

a M. Ry

onn
DONNA M. dge D
Ju RYU

23

RT

24

United States Magistrate Judge

ER

26
27
28

2

A

H

25

FO

IT IS SO ORDERED.

R NIA

S
20

RT
U
O

19

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

LI

18

UNIT
ED

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C