Innovation Ventures LLC et al v. Pittsburg Wholesale Grocers Inc et al

Filing 368

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED REQUEST TO USE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY by Hon. William Alsup granting 340 Motion Use deposition testimony.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2013)

1
2
3

William A. Markham, State Bar No. 132970
Dorn Graham Bishop, State Bar No. 147994
Jason Eliaser, State Bar No. 248394
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM MARKHAM, P.C.
550 West C Street, Suite 2040
San Diego, CA 92101

4
5

Tel:
Fax:
E-mail:

[phone]
[phone]
[e-mail]

6
Attorneys for Defendant Dan-Dee Company, Inc.
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

INNOVATION VENTURES, LLC et al.

13

Plaintiffs.

14
Vs.
15
16
17
18

PITTSBURGH WHOLESALE
GROCERS d/b/a PITCO FOODS et al.,
Defendants

19
20
RELATED ACTIONS
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO USE DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.

12-cv-5523-WHA

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
(RE: USE OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY
GIVEN IN A RELATED CASE)
Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:

July 11, 2013
8:00 a.m.
Courtroom 8, 19th Floor
The Hon. William H. Alsup

Complaint Filed:
Trial Date:

October 26, 2012
January 13, 2014

1

I. RECITALS

2

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs seek relief for alleged product counterfeiting and to this end have filed

3

two civil actions in two different federal courts that both arise from the same essential allegations of

4

product counterfeiting; and

5

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed the first of these actions in the Eastern District of New York. The

6

name of this case is Innovation Ventures et al. v. Ultimate One Distributing Corp. et al., 12 Civ.

7

5354 KAM (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (the "New York Action"); and

8

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed the second of these actions, which is the present case, in the

9

Northern District of California. The name of the California case is Innovation Ventures et al. v.

10

Pittsburgh Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 12-cv-5523-WHA (N.D. Cal. 2012) (the "California Action");

11

and

12

WHEREAS, on the basis of these allegations, which Plaintiffs have repeated in both the New

13

York and California Actions, Plaintiffs have sued some entities and individuals in the California

14

Action and others in the New York Action; and

15

WHEREAS, in the California Action Plaintiffs have taken the deposition of Kevin Attiq, who

16

is a defendant, cross-defendant, and third-party plaintiff in the California Action as well as a

17

third-party defendant in the New York Action; and

18

WHEREAS, in the New York Action, Plaintiffs have taken the depositions of Walid Jamil,

19

Raid Jamil, Justin Shayota, Adriana Shayota, Joe Shayota, Mario Ramirez, and Jorge Navarro, all of

20

whom are defendants in the New York Action and third-party defendants in the California Action;

21

and

22

WHEREAS, the parties to this stipulation include each of the above deponents; and

23

WHEREAS, the purpose of this stipulated agreement is to promote judicial economy by

24

limiting duplicative discovery in both the California Action and the New York Action, including by

25

convening one rather than two depositions of the above parties and by affording every party in both

26

actions a full opportunity to examine each of the above parties; and

27

WHEREAS, the aims of judicial economy will be promoted by this agreement;

28

WHEREFORE, the below parties now agree and stipulate to the following limited
STIPULATION TO USE DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS

-2-

1

coordination of discovery proceedings in the California Action and the New York Action:

2

II. STIPULATED AGREEMENT

3

1.

Plaintiffs have noticed and taken the depositions of the following parties in the New

4

York Action: Walid Jamil; Raid Jamil; Justin Shayota; Adriana Shayota; Joe Shayota; Mario Ramirez;

5

and Jorge Navarro. Most of these depositions have been adjourned, not concluded, and the parties

6

agree by this stipulation that all of these depositions will be deemed adjourned rather than concluded.

7

The listed party-deponents will cooperate reasonably to schedule the resumption of their depositions

8

and afford every party in both the California Action and the New York Action a fair and full

9

opportunity to examine them at these depositions in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

10

Procedure. The transcripts of these depositions can be used or proffered for use as deposition

11

testimony of parties to the New York Action. The transcripts of these depositions can also be used or

12

proffered for use as deposition testimony of parties to the California Action as if the depositions

13

themselves had been noticed and conducted pursuant to the California Action.

14

2.

Plaintiffs have noticed and taken the deposition of the following party in the California

15

Action: Kevin Attiq. This deposition has been adjourned, not concluded, and Kevin Attiq will

16

cooperate reasonably in scheduling the resumption of his deposition and afford every party in both the

17

California Action and the New York Action a fair and full opportunity to conduct an examination of

18

him in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The transcript of this deposition can be

19

used or proffered for use as deposition testimony of a party to the California Action. The transcript of

20

this deposition can also be used or proffered for use as deposition testimony of a party to the New

21

York Action as if the deposition itself had been noticed and conducted pursuant to the New York

22

Action.

23
24
25

3.

Subject to approval by the Court, other depositions can be made subject to this

agreement if the relevant parties so stipulate.
4.

The seven depositions taken in the New York Action and one deposition taken in the

26

California Action shall count against the parties' allowed number of depositions in the California

27

Action as follows: Four depositions shall count against the Plaintiffs and four depositions shall count

28

against Dan-Dee Company, Inc.
STIPULATION TO USE DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS

-3-

1
2
3
4

5.

This agreement will become effective only if it is approved by the Court and adopted

by it as a binding Order of the Court.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
DATED: May 24, 2013

/s/ Geoffrey Potter, Esq.
______________________________________
Geoffrey Potter, Esq.
PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP,
Attorneys for Innovation Ventures, LLC; Living
Essentials, LLC; and International IP Holdings, LLC

DATED: May 24, 2013

/s/ Jennifer Lee Taylor, Esq.
_____________________________________
Jennifer Lee Taylor, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Attorneys for Defendants Pittsburgh Wholesale
Grocers, Inc. and Pacific Groservice, Inc.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
DATED: May 24, 2013
13
14
15

/s/Randolph Gaw, Esq.
____________________________________
Randolph Gaw, Esq.
THE GAW GROUP
Attorneys for Defendants Elite Wholesale, Inc.;
Tonic Wholesale, Inc. Dapan USA Corp.; and Sung
Keun Lee.

16
17

DATED: May 24, 2013

18
19

/s/Dean Alper, Esq.
_____________________________________
Dean Alper, Esq.
ALPER & MCCULLOCH,
Attorneys for Defendant United Custom Distributors,
LLC

20
21

DATED: May 24, 2013

22
23

/s/Richard M. Apkarian Jr. Esq.
______________________________________
Richard M. Apkarian Jr. Esq.
PAESANO AKKASHIAN, P.C.
Walid Jamil; Raid Jamil; Justin Shayota; Midwest
Wholesale Distributors, Inc.; Trimexico, Inc.; and JT
Wholesale, Inc.

24
25
DATED: May 24, 2013
26
27

/s/Gregory A. Vega, Esq.
______________________________________
Gregory A. Vega, Esq.
SELTZER CAPLAN MCMAHON VITEK
Adriana Shayota; Joe Shayota; Tradeway
International, Inc.; and NaftaUnited.com

28
STIPULATION TO USE DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS

-4-

1
2
DATED: May 24, 2013
3
4

/s/Daniel J. Dimuro, Esq.
______________________________________
Daniel J. Dimuro, Esq.
GORDON & REES LLP
Mario Ramirez; Camilo Ramirez; MCR Innovations and
Packaging, Inc.; and MCR Printing & Packaging Corp.

5
6
DATED: May 24, 2013
7
8

/s/Steven Elia, Esq.
______________________________________
Steven Elia, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN ELIA, APC
Attorneys for Defendants Kevin Attiq and Fadi Attiq

9
10

DATED: May 24, 2013

11

/s/William Markham, Esq.
______________________________________
William Markham, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM MARKHAM, P.C.
Attorney for Defendant Dan-Dee Company, Inc.

12
13
14
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
17

Dated:

June 10

, 2013

______________________________________
William H. Alsup
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO USE DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS

-5-