24/7 Customer, Inc. v. LivePerson, Inc.

Filing 48

DUAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on November 19, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 George A. Riley (S.B. #118304) griley@omm.com Mark E. Miller (S.B. #130200) markmiller@omm.com David R. Eberhart (S.B. #195474) deberhart@omm.com Elysa Q. Wan (S.B. #297806) ewan@omm.com O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-3823 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 Susan D. Roeder (S.B. #160897) O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 2765 Sand Hill Road Menlo Park, CA 94025-7019 Carolyn S. Wall (pro hac vice ) O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP Times Square Tower, 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036 13 14 Karen I. Boyd (State Bar No. 189808) boyd@turnerboyd.com Louis L. Wai (State Bar No. 295089) wai@turnerboyd.com TURNER BOYD LLP 702 Marshall Street, Suite 640 Redwood City, California 94063 Telephone: (650) 521-5930 Facsimile: (650) 521-5931 J. Michael Huget (admitted pro hac vice) mhuget@honigman.com Charles W. Duncan, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice) cduncan@honigman.com Sarah E. Waidelich (admitted pro hac vice) swaidelich@honigman.com HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ AND COHN LLP 130 South First Street, Fourth Floor Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 418-4254 Attorneys for Defendant LIVEPERSON, INC. Attorneys for Plaintiff 24/7 Customer, Inc. 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 19 20 24/7 Customer, Inc., 21 Case No. 3:15-CV-02897-JST Plaintiff, 22 v. 23 [JOINT PROPOSED] DUAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER LivePerson, Inc., 24 Defendant. 25 26 27 28 [JOINT PROPOSED] DUAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 3:15-CV-02897-JST 1 [JOINT PROPOSED] DUAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 2 In order to coordinate discovery in the above-captioned Action with discovery in 3 LivePerson, Inc. v. 24/7 Customer, Inc., 1:14-cv-01559-RWS pending before the Honorable 4 Robert W. Sweet in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, (“the 5 New York Action”) the Parties shall implement the following discovery protocols. 6 1. COORDINATION OF DISCOVERY BETWEEN THE TWO ACTIONS 7 a. Document Production 8 Any document produced in the New York Action will be available for use in the above- 9 captioned California action, and vice versa. The confidentiality designations for the protective 10 orders will be coordinated and apply regardless of the case in which a document is produced. The 11 Parties shall, nevertheless, use production numbers that indicate the action in which a document is 12 produced. 13 14 b. Written Discovery Any written response to an interrogatory or request for admission in the New York action 15 will be available for use in the above-captioned California action, and vice versa. 16 confidentiality designations applied to such written responses will apply regardless of the case in 17 which the written response is made. 18 The c. Deposition of Fact Witnesses 19 Deposition testimony provided in the New York action will be available for use in the 20 above-captioned California action, and vice versa. The confidentiality designations for deposition 21 transcripts and exhibits will apply regardless of the case in which the deposition is taken. 22 In the interest of minimizing the burdens of discovery, the parties shall endeavor to limit 23 duplicative deposition discovery to the extent practicable. 24 following strategies to so limit the depositions of fact witnesses, absent extenuating 25 circumstances, and shall discuss additional options as necessary: 26 The parties shall implement the i. Limited Depositions of Shared Witnesses 27 If a fact witness has already been deposed in the course of discovery in the New York 28 Action, the duration of a second deposition of the same witness in the above-captioned California -2- [JOINT PROPOSED] DUAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 3:15-CV-02897-JST 1 case may be reduced by one hour where the deposing party has already had an opportunity in the 2 New York action to depose the witness on his or her educational and employment background. 3 ii. Foreign Witnesses Deposed in the United States 4 [24]7 has employees in India and LivePerson has employees in Israel. The Parties 5 anticipate that some of these employees will be deposed in the New York and/or California 6 Actions. For purposes of admissibility, any deposition taken in a foreign country shall be treated 7 as if it were taken in the United States. The Parties will meet and confer in good faith regarding 8 the locations of depositions of witnesses who are not current employees and who are located in a 9 foreign country. 10 After both parties have reasonably identified through initial disclosures, interrogatory 11 responses, or otherwise the respective areas of knowledge and geographical locations of their 12 employees with relevant knowledge—they will meet and confer in good faith regarding which 13 and how many depositions will take place in the United States. Depositions conducted outside 14 the United States shall be conducted in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 15 provided however, that this provision shall not be construed as requiring any party to violate the 16 local laws of any foreign country. 17 iii. Foreign Discovery 18 The parties expect that both cases will involve the production of documents maintained by 19 [24]7’s employees in India and LivePerson’s employees in Israel. The discoverability and 20 production of documents located outside of the United States that are within the possession, 21 custody, or control of any party shall be governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 22 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the physical location of a document may be taken into 23 consideration when assessing the burdensomeness of producing it. 24 Documents that are within the possession, custody, or control of any party shall be treated 25 as if they were located in the United States, regardless of their actual physical location. Should a 26 party move to compel production of documents located in a foreign country, and should this 27 Court order the production of such documents, this Court’s order shall set the scope of the 28 documents to be produced, and any party so ordered shall voluntarily produce the documents -3- [JOINT PROPOSED] DUAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 3:15-CV-02897-JST 1 through the procedures set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court shall preside 2 over any disputes regarding the production of documents located in a foreign country. 3 Within the limits on deposition time set forth in the Joint Case Management Conference 4 and Statement, in response to a deposition notice served upon a party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 30, the party will voluntarily produce any noticed employees for deposition, regardless of whether 6 the employee is located in the United States or a foreign country; provided, however, that nothing 7 in this provision shall be construed as requiring any party to violate the local laws of any foreign 8 country. 9 10 11 Dated: November 19, 2015 O’MELVENY & MYERS 12 13 By: 14 /s/ Mark E. Miller Mark E. Miller Attorneys for Plaintiff 24/7 Customer, Inc. 15 16 17 Dated: November 19, 2015 TURNER BOYD LLP 18 19 By: 20 21 /s/ Karen Boyd Karen Boyd Attorneys for Defendant LivePerson, Inc. 22 23 24 ATTESTATION: Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from Karen Boyd. 25 26 By: 27 /s/ Mark E. Miller Mark E. Miller 28 -4- [JOINT PROPOSED] DUAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 3:15-CV-02897-JST 1 S Dated: November 19, 2015 By: DERED O OR IT IS S 6 JON S. TIGAR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 NO UNIT ED 4 RT U O 3 5 S DISTRICT TE C TA The parties’ stipulation is adopted and IT IS SO ORDERED. R NIA 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER ER 10 FO A H 9 . Ti ga r LI RT 8 nS J u d ge J o N F D IS T IC T O R C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5- [JOINT PROPOSED] DUAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 3:15-CV-02897-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?