Ai-Daiwa, Ltd. v. Apparent, Inc. et al

Filing 63

Order by Hon. Vince Chhabria granting 62 Stipulation to Extend the Date for Production to the Court Appointed Expert.(knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 A Professional Corporation Redwood City Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley 8 11 12 13 14 15 16 CHI-HUNG A. CHAN (SBN 104289) LAEL D. ANDARA (SBN 215416) MICHAEL D. KANACH (271215) ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY 1001 Marshall Street, Suite 500 Redwood City, CA 94063-2052 Telephone: (650) 364-8200 Facsimile: (650) 780-1701 Email: cchan@rmkb.com landara@rmkb.com Attorneys for Plaintiff AI-DAIWA, LTD. JACQUELINE DESOUZA, (SBN 133686) DESOUZA LAW OFFICES, PC 1615 HOPKINS STREET BERKELEY, CA 94707 Tel: (510) 550-0010 Fax: (510) 649-3420 Attorneys for Defendants APPARENT INC, APPARENT ENERGY INC., APPARENT SOLAR INC., AND XSLENT ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; APPARENT SOLAR INVESTMENTS (II), LLC ERRONEOUSLY SUED HEREIN AS APPARENT SOLAR INVESTMENTS, LLC and Counterclaimants Apparent Inc. and Apparent Energy Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AI-DAIWA, LTD., Plaintiff, v. APPARENT, INC., a Delaware Corporation; APPARENT ENERGY, INC., a Delaware Corporation; APPARENT SOLAR, INC., a Delaware Corporation; APPARENT SOLAR INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company; XSLENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; XSLENT ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, RC1/7508310.1/MK6 CASE NO. CV13-4156 VC STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND THE DATE FOR PRODUCTION TO THE COURT APPOINTED EXPERT -1- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND THE DATE FOR PRODUCTION TO THE COURT APPOINTED EXPERT - CV13-4156 VC 1 2 3 Defendants. AND RELATED CROSS ACTION 4 5 Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1, 6-2, and 7-12, Plaintiff AI-Daiwa, Ltd. (AI-Daiwa) and Defendants Apparent, Inc., Apparent Energy Inc., Apparent Solar Inc., Xslent Energy 7 Technologies, LLC; Apparent Solar Investments (Ii), LLC erroneously sued herein as Apparent 8 Solar Investments, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) and Apparent Inc and Apparent Energy Inc 9 (collectively Counterclaimants) (all collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned 10 A Professional Corporation Redwood City Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley 6 counsel, submit this Stipulated Joint Request to Continue the deadlines for production of 11 documents and devices to the Court-Appointed Expert. 12 WHEREAS, the Court entered an Order on May 16, 2014, appointing Mark McNeely as 13 the Court appointed expert and requiring certain documents and devices be produced to the expert 14 – as set forth in the Order. (See Docket No. 54); 15 WHEREAS, immediately after the Order, the parties’ counsel participated in a conference 16 call with each other to discuss the next steps. That call was followed by a conference call with 17 the Court-Appointed expert, Mr. McNeely. The parties agreed to a procedure for production of 18 data to each other for review and the opportunity to object, if necessary, prior to the production of 19 those documents to Mr. McNeely; 20 WHEREAS, Mr. McNeely was provided publicly available documents from the Court’s 21 docket, including the aforementioned Order (Docket No. 54), AI-Daiwa’s First Amended 22 Complaint (Docket No. 5), Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaims (Docket No. 37), the 23 Stipulation with Proposed Protective Order (Docket No. 42), and the Stipulation with Proposed 24 ESI Order (Docket No. 44). Mr. McNeely signed Exhibit A to the Protective Order – 25 Acknowledgement and Agreement to be Bound; 26 27 28 WHEREAS, when the May 16, 2014 Order was entered, no documents or devices had been produced in this litigation; WHEREAS, since that time, the parties have worked diligently to collect and produce RC1/7508310.1/MK6 -2- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND THE DATE FOR PRODUCTION TO THE COURT APPOINTED EXPERT - CV13-4156 VC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 A Professional Corporation Redwood City Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley 8 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 information to the expert, subject to the safeguard referenced above. On May 26, 2014, counsel for AI-Daiwa visited the manufacturing facilities in Heyuan, China. On June 6, 2014, Apparent produced three CDs containing emails from three custodians (Stefan Matan, Frank Marrone, and Jacqueline DeSouza). In a cover letter, Apparent informed AI Daiwa that production was delayed due to technical issues. Apparent is also working on associating in new counsel, in part, to handle discovery matters and overcome technical issues that occurred with the recent production; WHEREAS, to date, counsel for AI-Daiwa has received one potted device and one un-potted device and is awaiting an additional ten (10) units of MGi devices produced in the period 2011-2012 and have completed the required testing but have not been delivered to Apparent for production to the expert; WHEREAS, Apparent has prepared and has ready for production ten (10) devices that do not operate and that were not previously used or sold by Apparent, or otherwise modified by Apparent; and ten (10) devices that failed in the field; WHEREAS, the Parties are also working to review and approve the appropriate documentation that should be submitted to the Expert. As set forth in the Order appointing Mr. McNeely as the Court-Appointed Expert, those documents include the bill of materials used for the manufacture of the devices; specification sheets for manufacture of the devices; the Supply Chain Agreement, Addendum, and quality and testing standards provided to AI-Daiwa for the manufacture of the devices; and additional information the Parties deem relevant. (Docket No. 54, Paragraphs III.B.3 and III.B.4.) WHEREAS, the Parties agree to produce documents to the expert within sixty (60) days of the Court entering the [Proposed] Order attached to this Joint Stipulation to the Court. WHEREAS, L.R. 6-1 permits the parties to stipulate in writing without a court order, “to enlarge or shorten the time in matters not required to be filed or lodged with the Court provided the change will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by Court order.” N.D.C.A. Local Rule 6-1; WHEREAS, the Parties are not aware of any date fixed by Court order that will be altered 28 RC1/7508310.1/MK6 -3- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND THE DATE FOR PRODUCTION TO THE COURT APPOINTED EXPERT - CV13-4156 VC 1 2 3 by the Parties’ stipulated request, absent the Court’s execution of this [Proposed] Order; WHEREAS, the requested extension will not otherwise alter the schedule of this case; and WHEREAS, good cause exists to grant the Parties’ Stipulated Joint Request. 4 5 6 7 9 ORDER STATING: 1. The Parties have sixty (60) days from the entry of the attached Order to produce the documents and devices set forth in Docket No. 54 to the Court-Appointed Expert Mark McNeely. IT IS SO STIPULATED. 10 11 IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD. 12 13 DATED: ______6/20/2014_________ __/Lael D. Andara/_______________________ Attorneys for AI-Daiwa 14 15 16 DATED: ______6/20/2014_________ __/Jacqueline deSouza/____________________ Attorneys for Defendants 17 18 [Proposed] ORDER 19 Dated: June 23, 2014 Honorable Vince Chhabria United States District Court Judge ia Chhabr e Vi n c e Judg 24 RT ER H 26 LI NO 25 27 28 RC1/7508310.1/MK6 -4- FO 23 R NIA ERED O ORD ____________________________________ IT IS S A 22 S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O 21 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. S 20 UNIT ED A Professional Corporation Redwood City Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley 8 NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES STIPULATE AND JOINTLY REQUEST AN N D IS T IC T R OF C STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND THE DATE FOR PRODUCTION TO THE COURT APPOINTED EXPERT - CV13-4156 VC

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?