24/7 Customer, Inc. v. LivePerson, Inc.
Filing
177
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 176 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Re: Authenticity of Third Party Documents filed by 24/7 Customer International Holdings, Ltd., 24 7.ai, Inc. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 7, 2018. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2018)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
DARIN W. SNYDER (S. B. #136003)
dsnyder@omm.com
MARK E. MILLER (S.B. #130200)
markmiller@omm.com
GEOFFREY H. YOST (S.B. #159687)
gyost@omm.com
ANNE E. HUFFSMITH (s.b. #236438)
ahuffsmith@omm.com
ALEXANDER B. PARKER (S.B. #264705)
aparker@omm.com
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center
28ᵗʰ Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-3823
Telephone:
+1 415 984 8700
Facsimile:
+1 415 984 8701
MICHAEL W. DE VRIES (S.B. #211001)
michael.devries@kirkland.com
SHARRE LOTFOLLAHI (S.B. #258913)
sharre.lotfollahi @kirkland.com
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
333 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 680-8400
Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LivePerson, Inc.
Attorneys for Defendant
[24]7.ai, Inc.
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
SAN FRANCISCO
14
15
LivePerson, Inc.,
16
17
18
Plaintiff,
v.
[24]7.ai, Inc.,
19
20
21
Defendant.
[24]7.ai, Inc. and 24/7 Customer International
Holdings, Ltd.,
22
23
24
25
Case No. 3:17-CV-01268-JST
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 3:15-CV-02897-JST (KAW)
(Lead Case)
Case No. 3:15-CV-05585-JST (KAW)
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER RE: AUTHENTICITY OF
THIRD PARTY DOCUMENTS
LivePerson, Inc.,
Defendant.
26
27
28
STIPULATION RE: AUTHENTICITY OF
THIRD PARTY DOCUMENTS
CASE NO. 3:17-CV-01268-JST (KAW)
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-05585-JST
1
STIPULATION
2
3
LivePerson, Inc. and (“LivePerson”) and [24]7.ai, Inc. and 24/7 Customer Holdings, Inc.
4
(collectively, “[24]7”) have obtained documents from third parties in response to the service of
5
subpoenas under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 in LivePerson, Inc. v. [24]7.ai, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-01268-JST,
6
and [24]7.ai, Inc. and 24/7 Customer International Holdings, Ltd. v. LivePerson, Inc., Nos. 3:15-
7
cv-02897-JST (KAW) and 3:15-cv-05585-JST (KAW) (the “Actions”).
8
9
The parties, subject to the approval of the Court, hereby agree and stipulate as follows:
1. Documents produced in the Actions by a third party in response to a subpoena
10
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (“third-party documents”) shall be presumed authentic
11
within the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 901 for the purposes of the
12
Actions only.
13
2. Neither party will object to the authenticity of the third-party documents for
14
the purposes of the Actions absent good cause. Good cause requires
15
affirmative evidence that a document is not authentic, such as evidence that a
16
document is not what it purports to be, is incomplete (e.g., missing or
17
incomplete pages), or has been modified from the form in which the third party
18
originally produced it.
19
3. For the purposes of the Actions only, a sworn declaration provided by a third
20
party shall be deemed admissible sworn testimony for the sole purpose of
21
establishing foundational facts regarding the admissibility of the third-party
22
documents and [24]7 and LivePerson documents sent to or received from the
23
third party into evidence, including facts demonstrating the applicability of an
24
exception to the rule against hearsay pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 803.
25
Any party seeking to admit such a third party declaration must serve such
26
declaration on the opposing party by May 3, 2018.
27
SO STIPULATED.
28
-1-
STIPULATION RE: AUTHENTICITY OF
THIRD PARTY DOCUMENTS
CASE NO. 3:17-CV-01268-JST (KAW)
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-05585-JST
1
2
3
Dated: February 6 , 2018
SHARRE LOTFOLLAHI
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
4
By: /s/ Sharre Lotfollahi
Sharre Lotfollahi
5
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LivePerson, Inc.
7
8
9
Dated: February 6, 2018
10
11
GEOFFREY H. YOST
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
By: /s/ Geoffrey H. Yost
Geoffrey H. Yost
12
Attorneys for Defendant
[24]7.ai, Inc.
13
14
15
16
17
18
ATTESTATION
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this
document has been obtained from Sharre Lotfollahi of Kirkland & Ellis, counsel for LivePerson.
Dated: February 6, 2018
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
19
20
By:
21
/s/ Geoffrey H. Yost
Geoffrey H. Yost
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
STIPULATION RE: AUTHENTICITY OF
THIRD PARTY DOCUMENTS
CASE NO. 3:17-CV-01268-JST (KAW)
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-05585-JST
1
2
ORDER
1. Documents produced in the Actions by a third party in response to a subpoena
3
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (“third-party documents”) shall be presumed authentic
4
within the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 901 for the purposes of the
5
Actions only.
6
2. Neither party will object to the authenticity of the third-party documents for
7
the purposes of the Actions absent good cause. Good cause requires
8
affirmative evidence that a document is not authentic, such as evidence that a
9
document is not what it purports to be, is incomplete (e.g., missing or
10
incomplete pages), or has been modified from the form in which the third party
11
originally produced it.
12
3. For the purposes of the Actions only, a sworn declaration provided by a third
13
party shall be deemed admissible sworn testimony for the sole purpose of
14
establishing foundational facts regarding the admissibility of the third-party
15
documents and [24]7 and LivePerson documents sent to or received from the
16
third party into evidence, including facts demonstrating the applicability of an
17
exception to the rule against hearsay pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 803.
18
Any party seeking to admit such a third party declaration must serve such
19
declaration on the opposing party by May 3, 2018.
20
21
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
24
25
26
Dated: ___________, 2018
February 7
________________________________________________
Honorable Jon S. Tigar
United States District Judge
Northern District of California
27
28
-3-
STIPULATION RE: AUTHENTICITY OF
THIRD PARTY DOCUMENTS
CASE NO. 3:17-CV-01268-JST (KAW)
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-05585-JST
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?