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)
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?