Disney Enterprises, Inc. et al v. Hotfile Corp. et al

Filing 6

ORDER re 1 MOTION to Compel filed by Hotfile Corp. Motions terminated: 1 MOTION to Compel filed by Hotfile Corp. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 11/21/2011. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2011)

Download PDF
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 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL., 12 13 Plaintiffs, No. C-11-80288 MISC RS (DMR) NOTICE OF REFERENCE AND ORDER RE DISCOVERY PROCEDURES v. 14 HOTFILE CORP., ET AL, 15 Defendants. ___________________________________/ 16 17 18 TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD: The above matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu for resolution of 19 Defendant Hotfile Corp.’s Motion to Compel Third Party DtecNet to Provide Deposition Testimony 20 and Produce Documents (“Motion to Compel”). The Motion to Compel was noticed for hearing on 21 December 6, 2011. 22 The court VACATES the current hearing date on Defendant’s Motion to Compel and 23 DENIES the Motion to Compel without prejudice. Any joint letter regarding the instant discovery 24 dispute (see section below entitled “Resolution of Discovery Disputes”) shall be filed no later than 25 December 2, 2011. 26 Parties shall comply with the procedures in this order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 27 and the Northern District of California’s Local Rules, General Orders, and General Standing Orders. 28 Local rules, general orders, general standing orders, and a summary of the general orders’ electronic 1 filing requirements (including the procedures for emailing proposed orders to chambers) are 2 available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov. The parties’ failure to comply with any of the rules or 3 orders may be a ground for sanctions. 4 5 RESOLUTION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES In order to respond to discovery disputes in a flexible, cost-effective and efficient manner, Instead, as required by the federal and local rules, the parties shall first meet and confer to try to 8 resolve their disagreements. The meet and confer session must be in person or by telephone, and 9 may not be conducted by letter, e-mail, or fax. If disagreements remain, the parties shall file a joint 10 letter no later than five (5) business days after the meet and confer session. Lead trial counsel for 11 For the Northern District of California the Court uses the following procedure. The parties shall not file formal discovery motions. 7 United States District Court 6 both parties must sign the letter, which shall include an attestation that the parties met and 12 conferred in person or by telephone regarding all issues prior to filing the letter. Going issue-by- 13 issue, the joint letter shall describe each unresolved issue, summarize each party’s position with 14 appropriate legal authority; and provide each party’s final proposed compromise before moving to 15 the next issue. The joint letter shall not exceed ten (10) pages without leave of Court. In the rare 16 instance that a joint letter is not possible, each side may submit a letter not to exceed four (4) pages, 17 which shall include an explanation of why a joint letter was not possible. When appropriate, the 18 parties may submit one exhibit to the letter that sets forth each discovery request at issue in full, 19 followed immediately by the objections and/or responses thereto. No other information shall be 20 included in any such exhibit. No other exhibits shall be submitted without prior approval by the 21 Court. The Court will review the submission(s) and determine whether formal briefing or 22 proceedings are necessary. 23 In emergencies during discovery events (such as depositions), any party may, after 24 exhausting good faith attempts to resolve disputed issues, seek judicial intervention pursuant to Civil 25 L.R. 37-1(b) by contacting the Court through the courtroom deputy. If the Court is unavailable, the 26 discovery event shall proceed with objections noted for the record. 27 28 In the event that a discovery hearing is ordered, the Court has found that it is often efficient and beneficial for the parties if counsel appear in person. This provides the opportunity, where 2 1 appropriate, to engage counsel in resolving aspects of the discovery dispute while remaining 2 available to rule on any disputes that counsel are not able to resolve. For this reason, the Court 3 expects counsel to appear in person. Permission for a party to attend by telephone may be granted, 4 in the Court's discretion, upon written request made at least two weeks in advance of the hearing if 5 the Court determines that good cause exists to excuse personal attendance, and that personal 6 attendance is not needed in order to have an effective discovery hearing. The facts establishing good 7 cause must be set forth in the request. 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 CHAMBERS COPIES AND PROPOSED ORDERS All filings relating to a discovery dispute referred to Magistrate Judge Ryu shall list the civil case number and the district court judge’s initials followed by the designation “(DMR).” Under Civil L.R. 5-1(b), parties must lodge an extra paper copy of any filing and mark it as a 12 copy for “Chambers.” Please three-hole punch the chambers copy and submit it to the Oakland 13 Clerk’s Office. In a case subject to electronic filing, chambers copies must be submitted by the 14 close of the next court day following the day the papers are filed electronically. Any proposed 15 stipulation or proposed order in a case subject to electronic filing shall be submitted by email to 16 dmrpo@cand.uscourts.gov as a word processing format attachment on the same day that the 17 document is e-filed. This address should only be used for this stated purpose unless otherwise 18 directed by the Court. 19 PRIVILEGE LOGS 20 If a party withholds information that is responsive to a discovery request by claiming that it 21 is privileged or otherwise protected from discovery, that party shall promptly prepare and provide a 22 privilege log that is sufficiently detailed and informative for the opposing part(ies) to assess whether 23 a document's designation as privileged is justified. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5). The privilege log 24 shall set forth the privilege relied upon and specify separately for each document or for each 25 category of similarly situated documents: 26 a. 27 28 The title and description of the document, including number of pages or Batesnumber range; b. The subject matter addressed in the document; 3 1 c. The identity and position of its author(s); 2 d. The identity and position of all addressees and recipients; 3 e. The date the document was prepared and, if different, the date(s) on which it was sent 4 Failure to furnish this information promptly may be deemed a waiver of the privilege or protection. 12 S DONNA M. RYU United States Magistrate Judge RT 13 onna Judge D ER H For the Northern District of California 11 D RDERE OO IT IS S NO United States District Court 10 Dated: November 21, 2011 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 M. Ryu FO 9 RT U O 8 S DISTRICT TE C TA R NIA IT IS SO ORDERED. LI 7 The specific basis for the claim that the document is privileged or protected. A 6 f. UNIT ED 5 to or shared with persons other than its author(s); and N F D IS T IC T O R C

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?