Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Kornrumpf

Filing 35

NOTICE OF REFERENCE AND ORDER RE DISCOVERY PROCEDURES. Previously-noticed hearing date of 1/13/2011 re 25 MOTION to Quash Subpoena to Non Party Custodian of Records for eBay Inc., 26 MOTION to Quash Subpoena Issued to Non-Party Custodian of Reco rds PayPal Inc., 27 MOTION to Quash Subpoena Issued to Non-Party Custodian of Records Google, Inc., has been VACATED. Motions to Quash 25 , 26 , 27 DENIED without prejudice. Parties to file joint letter no later than 12/23/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 12/2/2010. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2010)

Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Kornrumpf

Doc. 35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY KORNRUMPF, Defendant. ___________________________________/ HOOPS ENTERPRISE, LLC, Counter-Claimant, v. ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, et al., Counter-Defendants. ___________________________________/ TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:

No. C-10-02769-CW (DMR) NOTICE OF REFERENCE AND ORDER RE DISCOVERY PROCEDURES

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The above matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu for resolution of Defendant's/Counter-claimant's Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued to eBay, Inc. (Docket No. 25), Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued to PayPal, Inc. (Docket No. 26), and Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued to Google, Inc. (Docket No. 27) (collectively, "Motions to Quash"), as well as all further discovery. All three Motions to Quash were noticed for hearing on January 13, 2011.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

The Court VACATES the current hearing date on the Motions to Quash and DENIES the Motions to Quash without prejudice. The subpoenas subject to the Motions to Quash shall not be operative pending resolution of the instant dispute and the parties' compliance with the procedures for resolution of discovery disputes as set forth below. Any joint letter regarding the instant discovery dispute shall be filed no later than December 23, 2010. Parties shall comply with the procedures in this order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Northern District of California's Local Rules, General Orders, and General Standing Orders. Local rules, general orders, general standing orders, and a summary of the general orders' electronic filing requirements (including the procedures for emailing proposed orders to chambers) are available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov. The parties' failure to comply with any of the rules or orders may be a ground for sanctions. RESOLUTION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES In order to respond to discovery disputes in a flexible, cost-effective and efficient manner, the Court uses the following procedure. The parties shall not file formal discovery motions. Instead, as required by the federal and local rules, the parties shall first meet and confer to try to resolve their disagreements. The meet and confer session must be in person or by telephone, and may not be conducted by letter, e-mail, or fax. If disagreements remain, the parties shall file a joint letter no later than five (5) business days after the meet and confer session. Lead trial counsel for both parties must sign the letter, which shall (a) include an attestation that the parties met and conferred in person or by telephone regarding all issues prior to filing the letter; and (b) going issueby-issue, describe each unresolved issue, summarize each party's position with appropriate legal authority; and provide each party's final proposed compromise. The joint letter shall not exceed ten (10) pages without leave of Court. In the rare instance that a joint letter is not possible, each side may submit a letter not to exceed four (4) pages, which shall include an explanation of why a joint letter was not possible. The Court will review the submission(s) and determine whether formal briefing or proceedings are necessary. In emergencies during discovery events (such as depositions), any party may, after exhausting good faith attempts to resolve disputed issues, seek judicial intervention pursuant to Civil

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

L.R. 37-1(b) by contacting the Court through the courtroom deputy. If the Court is unavailable, the discovery event shall proceed with objections noted for the record. In the event that a discovery hearing is ordered, the Court has found that it is often efficient and beneficial for the parties if counsel appear in person. This provides the opportunity, where appropriate, to engage counsel in resolving aspects of the discovery dispute while remaining available to rule on any disputes that counsel are not able to resolve. For this reason, the Court expects counsel to appear in person. Permission for a party to attend by telephone may be granted, in the Court's discretion, upon written request made at least two weeks in advance of the hearing if the Court determines that good cause exists to excuse personal attendance, and that personal attendance is not needed in order to have an effective discovery hearing. The facts establishing good cause must be set forth in the request. CHAMBERS COPIES AND PROPOSED ORDERS All filings relating to a discovery dispute referred to Magistrate Judge Ryu shall list the civil case number and the district court judge's initials followed by the designation "(DMR)." Under Civil L.R. 5-1(b), parties must lodge an extra paper copy of any filing and mark it as a copy for "Chambers." Please three-hole punch the chambers copy and submit it to the Oakland Clerk's Office. In a case subject to electronic filing, chambers copies must be submitted by the close of the next court day following the day the papers are filed electronically. Any proposed stipulation or proposed order in a case subject to electronic filing shall be submitted by email to [e-mail] as a word processing format attachment on the same day that the document is e-filed. This address should only be used for this stated purpose unless otherwise directed by the Court. PRIVILEGE LOGS If a party withholds information that is responsive to a discovery request by claiming that it is privileged or otherwise protected from discovery, that party shall promptly prepare and provide a privilege log that is sufficiently detailed and informative for the opposing part(ies) to assess whether a document's designation as privileged is justified. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5). The privilege log

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

shall set forth the privilege relied upon and specify separately for each document or for each category of similarly situated documents: a. The title and description of the document, including number of pages or Batesnumber range; b. c. d. e. The subject matter addressed in the document; The identity and position of its author(s); The identity and position of all addressees and recipients; The date the document was prepared and, if different, the date(s) on which it was sent to or shared with persons other than its author(s); and f. The specific basis for the claim that the document is privileged or protected.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

Failure to furnish this information promptly may be deemed a waiver of the privilege or protection.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: December 2, 2010 DONNA M. RYU United States Magistrate Judge IT IS SO ORDERED.

4