Integral Development Corp v. Tolat

Filing 184

ORDER REGARDING [174-3] 177 THE PARTIES' SEVENTH JOINT LETTER BRIEF DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 10/24/2013.(lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT CORP,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,
v.

13

No. C 12-06575 JSW (LB)
ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’
SEVENTH JOINT LETTER BRIEF
DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2013

VIRAL TOLAT,
14
15
16
17
18

[Re: ECF Nos. 174-3, 177]
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
The court held a discovery hearing on October 24, 2013 on the parties’ seventh joint discovery
letter brief and issues this order to memorialize the rulings made at it
1. Review. The main dispute is whether information from the independent expert will be

19

produced directly to Integral or whether it will be produced first to Dr. Tolat’s counsel, Farella

20

Braun + Martel, to screen for Dr. Tolat’s personal information. For the reasons stated on the record,

21

the information will be produced to Farella first. Farella will review the documents and identify any

22

withheld documents on the equivalent of a privilege log according to the procedures set forth in the

23

undersigned’s standing order. Also, as the court said on the record (with Farella’s agreement), the

24

productions are not limited to “Integral confidential information,” see ECF No. 174-3 at 9,1 but

25

encompass all Integral information.

26

2. Timing. Farella represented that it will produce the remaining documents by early next week

27
28

1

Citations are to the electronic case file (ECF) with pin cites to the electronically-generated
page numbers at the top of the page (as opposed to the parties’ numbering on the bottom).
ORDER (C 12-06575 JSW (LB))

1

at the latest. Thus, the court’s order is that the documents must be produced by Wednesday, October

2

30, 2013.

3

3. Remaining Media. The discovery dispute also centered on whether Dr. Tolat had other media

4

devices and whether Integral could have access to certain computers and other media devices that at

5

some point were synced to the Dropbox account. See ECF No. 74-3 at 11. As to the other media

6

devices, Farella represented that Dr. Tolat has turned over all media devices for forensic evaluation,

7

and he will provide a declaration to that effect. As to other computers, the independent expert

8

provided serial numbers in response to Integral’s request for “unique identifiers,” but Integral now

9

wants registry numbers as well. Farella said that it would ask the expert whether this additional

10

information is available, and if it is, it will produce it.
4. General Questions About Functionality. Another issue was Integral’s questions to the expert

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

about functionality. See ECF No. 174-3 at 5-9. Farella will provide the questions to the expert and

13

ask how much it will cost to answer them. It is under no obligation to pay for the answers, but

14

depending on the cost, it may or may not decide to pay, and Integral may elect to pay the expert for

15

an answer that will be shared with both sides. There can be no unilateral questions by Integral:

16

whatever it asks about has to be sent to Farella. But this process will allow answers that may

17

illuminate the forensic landscape in preparation for the settlement conference. Farella agreed to this

18

process.

19

5. Dr. Tolat’s Access to the Trade Secrets. The court ordered access that includes providing the

20

source code to Farella pursuant to the protective order. Dr. Tolat may have visual access to it only

21

in the presence of his attorneys. As to the other written disclosures (the list of the alleged trade

22

secrets and the interrogatory responses), Farella may give these to Dr. Tolat pursuant to the

23

protective order, but Dr. Tolat cannot take them to work at EBS or otherwise give EBS (or anyone

24

else) access to them. Dr. Tolat’s expert also may have access to this discovery pursuant to the

25

protective order. If this order does not provide sufficient detail, the parties may submit a stipulated

26

order with these agreed-to protections spelled out in the detail that they deem appropriate.

27

6. Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition. This should go forward.

28

This disposes of ECF No. 177 (incorporating by reference ECF No. 174-3).

ORDER (C 12-06575 JSW (LB))

2

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 24, 2013
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER (C 12-06575 JSW (LB))

3