Federal Trade Commission v. DIRECTV, Inc. et al

Filing 299

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 297 Stipulation Permitting the Parties to Bring Additional Technology into the Courthouse. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Jeff Tillotson, SBN 139372
[e-mail]
Tillotson Law
750 North Saint Paul, Suite 600
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: [phone]

Eric D. Edmondson, D.C. Bar NO. 450294
Erika Wodinsky, Cal. Bar NO. 091700
Boris Yankilovich, Cal. Bar NO. 257887
Jacob A. Snow, Cal. Bar NO. 270988
901 Market Street, Suite 570
San Francisco, CA 94103
[phone]/[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]

Pete Marketos, Pro Hac Vice
[e-mail]
Reese Gordon Marketos LLP
750 North Saint Paul, Suite 600
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: [phone]

Raymond E. McKown, Cal. Bar NO. 150975
Stacy Procter, Cal. Bar NO. 221078
Kenneth H. Abbe, Cal. Bar NO. 172416
10877 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90024
[phone]/[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]

Chad S. Hummel, SBN 139055
[e-mail]
Mark D. Campbell, SBN 180528
[e-mail]
Bridget S. Johnsen, SBN 210778
[e-mail]
Ryan M. Sandrock, SBN 251781
[e-mail]
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 California Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Federal Trade Commission

Attorneys for Defendants
DIRECTV and DIRECTV, LLC

16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

20

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

21
22
23
24
25

Plaintiff,
v.
DIRECTV, a corporation, and DIRECTV,
LLC, a limited liability company,

Case No. 3:15-cv-01129 HSG
Assigned to the Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
STIPULATION AND ORDER
PERMITTING THE PARTIES TO BRING
ADDITIONAL TECHNOLOGY INTO THE
COURTHOUSE

Defendants.

26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PERMITTING THE PARTIES TO BRING ADDITIONAL
TECHNOLOGY INTO THE COURTHOUSE
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01129 HSG

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12 and the conference with the Court on February 3, 2017,

1
2

the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and Defendants DIRECTV and DIRECTV, LLC

3

(collectively “DIRECTV”) hereby stipulate and jointly request an order permitting the parties to

4

bring into the Courthouse additional technology and equipment for use during trial. 1
During trial, both the FTC and DIRECTV intend to introduce exhibits including, among

5
6

other things, numerous print ads in various shapes and sizes and multiple iterations of DIRECTV’s

7

website (including still captures, video captures, and interactive versions).
On February 3, 2017, the parties’ respective counsel and technology personnel tested the

8
9

courtroom trial technology and discovered certain issues that the parties believe may impede their

10

ability to efficiently present various evidence to the Court. First, as mentioned above, during

11

witness examinations, the parties may use exhibits in the form of electronic documents, videos, or

12

interactive websites. Without the previously requested switches, the parties cannot efficiently

13

switch between the various media needed to display differently formatted exhibits. Second, in

14

DIRECTV’s view, the resolution of the courtroom monitors diminishes the visibility of the

15

advertising. As an example (again only in DIRECTV’s view), when attempting to display print

16

ads in a digital form, certain text is distorted and unreadable on the courtroom monitors. 2 Finally,

17

the touchscreen monitor located at the witness stand currently displays the picture slightly off-

18

center, which means that the witness cannot always see the full exhibit. And if the witness

19

attempts to utilize the touchscreen annotations to draw on the screen, the annotations appear in a

20

different location (i.e., offset from where the witness touched) on the monitors in the Courtroom.

21
22
1

23
24
25
26
27

On January 30, 2017, the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order Permitting the Parties to
Bring Additional Technology into the Courthouse. [Dkt. No. 288]. The Court granted, in part, and
denied, in part, the parties’ requested additional technology. [Dkt. No. 290]. On February 3, 2017,
the parties tested the Courtroom’s technology and raised certain issues discovered therewith during
a telephonic conference with the Court. The Court permitted the parties to file this joint stipulation
to address the same. [Dkt. No. 294].
2
DIRECTV plans to introduce exemplar print ads into evidence in the size and form disseminated
to potential consumers. However, DIRECTV understands that the Court’s preference, as stated to
the parties, is to view the various exhibits in electronic format. Additionally, given the hundreds of
different print ads at issue, it is cost prohibitive to DIRECTV to print every single ad in the correct
size and format.

28
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PERMITTING THE PARTIES TO BRING ADDITIONAL
TECHNOLOGY INTO THE COURTHOUSE
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01129 HSG

1

The Court’s technology personnel were not able to fix that problem before the trial-date

2

continuance was announced on Friday morning.

3

The parties appreciate the Court’s concern regarding technology compatibility,

4

seamlessness, efficiency, and the Court’s ability to run the remainder of its docket using its

5

existing technology without interruption from this case. Therefore, the parties request permission

6

to bring in the following additional technology and equipment, which will operate independently

7

from the Court’s existing system:

8

(1)

One 4x8 switch/distribution amplifier;

9

(2)

Two 4x1 switches; 


10

(3)

One speaker system; 


11

(4)

Seven 19-inch High Resolution Monitors for the bench (1), witness stand (1),
counsel tables (2 for each side), and lecterns (1); 


12
13

(5)

One LCD projector and stand; and

14

(6)

One projector screen. 


15

The parties further jointly request access to the courtroom for purposes of setting up and testing the

16

technology on Friday, March 3, 2017. All equipment and necessary wiring will be placed in a

17

manner so as not to interfere with other activities in the Courtroom when trial is not in session and

18

to avoid any unsafe condition. The parties remain mindful of the Court’s docket and resources and

19

will do their utmost to reduce interruption and inconvenience.

20

SO STIPULATED:

21

Dated: February 10, 2017
By:/s/ Jacob Snow
Jacob A. Snow
Counsel for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission

22
23
24
25
26
27

Dated: February 10, 2017
By: /s/ Pete Marketos
Jeff Tillotson
Pete Marketos
Chad Hummel
Counsel for Defendants DIRECTV and DIRECTV, LLC

28
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PERMITTING THE PARTIES TO BRING ADDITIONAL
TECHNOLOGY INTO THE COURTHOUSE
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01129 HSG

1
2
SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

3
4

I am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to file the foregoing

5

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Permitting the Parties to Bring Additional Technology into the

6

Courthouse in compliance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that the signatory has

7

concurred in this filing.

8
9

Dated: February 10, 2017

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

10
11

By:

12

/s/ Ryan M. Sandrock
Ryan M. Sandrock

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PERMITTING THE PARTIES TO BRING ADDITIONAL
TECHNOLOGY INTO THE COURTHOUSE
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01129 HSG

1

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3

Dated: February 21, 2017

__________________________________
HON. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PERMITTING THE PARTIES TO BRING ADDITIONAL
TECHNOLOGY INTO THE COURTHOUSE
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01129 HSG