Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.

Filing 59

ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION AND STATEMENT RE DISCOVERY re case 4:17-cv-5928-YGR. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 3/5/18. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6

John J. Edmonds (State Bar No. 274200)
[e-mail]
COLLINS EDMONDS
COLLINS, EDMONDS & SCHLATHER, PLLC
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
CELLSPIN SOFT INC.

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

CELLSPIN SOFT, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
FITBIT, INC.,
Defendant.

19

MOOV INC.,
Defendant.

22

ADIDAS AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.

25

NIKE, INC.,
Defendant.

28

Case No. 4:17-cv-05930-YGR
(RELATED CASE)

Case No. 4:17-cv-05931-YGR
(RELATED CASE)

v.
UNDER ARMOUR, INC.,
Defendant.

26
27

Case No. 4:17-cv-05929-YGR
(RELATED CASE)

v.

23
24

JOINT STIPULATION AND
STATEMENT REGARDING
DISCOVERY AND ORDER

v.

20
21

Case No. 4:17-cv-05928-YGR

v.

17
18

OAKLAND DIVISION

v.
FOSSIL GROUP, INC. ET AL.,

Case No. 4:17-cv-05932-YGR
(RELATED CASE)
Case No. 4:17-cv-05933-YGR
(RELATED CASE)

Page 1|5

Defendants.

1
2

v.

3

GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET
AL.,

4
5
6
7

Defendants.
v.
NIKON AMERICAS, INC. ET AL.,
Defendants.

8
9
10

13

CANON U.S.A., INC.,
Defendant.

16

Case No. 4:17-cv-05938-YGR
(RELATED CASE)

v.
GOPRO, INC.,
Defendant.

14
15

Case No. 4:17-cv-05936-YGR
(RELATED CASE)

v.

11
12

Case No. 4:17-cv-05934-YGR
(RELATED CASE)

Case No. 4:17-cv-05939-YGR
(RELATED CASE)

v.
PANASONIC CORPORATION OF
NORTH AMERICA,

17

Case No. 4:17-cv-05941-YGR
(RELATED CASE)

Defendant.

18

v.

19

JK IMAGING LTD.,

20

Defendant.

Case No. 4:17-cv-06881-YGR
(RELATED CASE)

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff, Cellspin Soft, Inc. (“Cellspin” or “Plaintiff”), and the above-named
Defendants, Fitbit, Moov, adidas, Nike, Under Armour, Fossil, Misfit, Garmin, Canon, GoPro,
Panasonic, JK Imaging, and Nikon (collectively “Defendants”), in the above-styled related
cases, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby respectfully file this
Stipulation and Statement Regarding Discovery pursuant to the Court’s instructions at its
February 29, 2018 scheduling conference and pursuant to the Court’s Case Management

Page 2|5

1

Orders filed in each respective case on February 2, 1018, hereby stipulate and state as follows:

2

WHEREAS, during the Court’s February 29, 2018 Initial Case Management Conference

3

on February 29, 2018;

4

WHEREAS during the scheduling conference and in this Court’s Order, the Court

5

instructed the parties to submit “either: (a) written stipulation with regards to discovery or (b)

6

a one-page Joint Statement setting forth an explanation for their failure to comply.”; (See, e.g.,

7

Doc. 44 in Fitbit case, 17-cv-05928-YGR; the “Order”)
WHEREAS the parties agree and stipulate that Pleadings in each related case be allowed

8
9

to be amended, without the need for leave of Court, up to, and including, June 5, 2018;

10

WHEREAS the parties agree and stipulate that the limits on discovery in each related

11

case shall proceed separately in each case pursuant to the presumptive limits in the Federal

12

Rules of Civil Procedure, except that the number of Requests for Admission in each related

13

case shall be limited to fifty (50) per party, not including requests for the purpose of

14

establishing the genuineness of documents or that documents are kept in the ordinary course

15

of business, which would not be limited;1
WHEREAS Cellspin contends there is a dispute between the parties on the issue of

16
17

written discovery.
Pursuant to this Court’s Order, the Parties submit the following one-page joint statement

18
19

regarding the failure to stipulate as follows:

20

Plaintiff’s Statement:

21

At the hearing, various dispute were discussed, including over Defendants’ responses

22

to discovery. This Court ordered either: (a) written stipulation or (b) Joint Statement for failure

23

to comply. While agreement on some issues was reached, as noted above, a dispute remains

24

regarding discovery. Plaintiff understands the Order to require actual responses to pending

25

requests, subject to any legitimate objections, including under PR 2-5 which Defendants’ cited

26

at the hearing. Defendants contend the Order only requires objections, not substantive

27
28

1

The Parties had disagreed upon deposition limits for each respective case, but at the Court’s
February 29, 2018 Initial Case Management Conference it ruled that each side in each
respective case may take up to twenty (20) depositions each, in each respective case.
Page 3|5

1

responses, must be served. See, e.g., Exhibit 1. Despite multiple meet and confers over this,

2

Defendants, the first time at 3:49 p.m. today, contended this matter should have been addressed

3

under a Standing Order instead. However, this dispute is within the discovery matters covered

4

by the Order, Defendants have stated their intention to not comply, and their non-responses

5

will be served prior to the March 2nd hearing. After losing their motion to stay discovery, they

6

now intend to defy the Order requiring their responses, via intentional misreading, and further

7

attempt to delay the Court addressing this ripe issue – effectively achieving the denied relief.

8

The Court should issue a supplemental Order correcting their willful misreading of its Order.

9

Defendants’ Statement:

10

Defendants do not believe that any dispute over Cellspin’s written discovery should be

11

raised as part of this stipulation. First, the issues raised by Cellspin are not ripe for resolution

12

because Defendants’ objections are not due until February 26, 2018. Second, Cellspin has not

13

complied with the procedures set forth in Section 8 the Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases

14

regarding discovery disputes. Cellspin’s attempt to raise a discovery dispute before receiving

15

Defendants’ responses and objections and before undergoing the meet and confer process is

16

improper.

17
18
19
20

NOW, THEREFORE, Cellspin and Defendants hereby respectfully stipulate and
propose, through their respective counsel, that
 Pleadings in each related case be allowed to be amended, without the need for leave of
Court, up to, and including, June 5, 2018; and

21

 the limits on discovery in each related case shall proceed pursuant to the presumptive

22

limits in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, except that the number of Requests for

23

Admission in each related case shall be limited to fifty (50) per party, not including

24

requests for the purpose of establishing the genuineness of documents or that documents

25

are kept in the ordinary course of business, which would not be limited; and

26
27

 the number of depositions per side in each related case shall be limited to twenty (20)
depositions.

28

Page 4|5

1
2

Dated: February 23, 2018

/s/ John J. Edmonds
Counsel for Plaintiff,
Cellspin Soft, Inc.

Dated: February 23, 2018

/s/ Shane Brun
Counsel for Defendant,
Fitbit, Inc.

Dated: February 23, 2018

/s/ Shane Brun
Counsel for Defendant,
Moov Inc.

Dated: February 23, 2018

/s/ Matias Ferrario
Counsel for Defendant,
adidas America, Inc.

Dated: February 23, 2018

/s/ Amy Walters
Counsel for Defendant,
Nike, Inc.

Dated: February 23, 2018

/s/ George D. Moustakas
Counsel for Defendant,
Under Armour, Inc.

Dated: February 23, 2018

/s/ Dalia B. Kothari
Counsel for Defendants,
Fossil Group, Inc. and Misfit, Inc.

Dated: February 23, 2018

/s/ Rachael Lamkin
Counsel for Defendants,
Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc.

Dated: February 23, 2018

/s/ Jacob A. Schroeder
Counsel for Defendants,
Nikon Americas, Inc. and Nikon, Inc.

Dated: February 23, 2018

/s/ Jeffrey Ung
Counsel for Defendant,
Canon U.S.A., Inc.

Dated: February 23, 2018

/s/ Daniel T. McCloskey
Counsel for Defendant,
GoPro Inc.

Dated: February 23, 2018

/s/ Jason Yu
Counsel for Defendant,
Panasonic Corporation of North America

Dated: February 23, 2018

/s/ Daniel Kiang
Counsel for Defendant,
JK Imaging

3
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

Page 5|5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

CELLSPIN SOFT, INC.,
Plaintiff,

19

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE:

FITBIT, INC.,

JOINT STIPULATION AND
STATEMENT REGARDING
DISCOVERY

Defendant.
v.
MOOV INC.,
Defendant.

22

ADIDAS AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.

25

NIKE, INC.,
Defendant.

28

Case No. 4:17-cv-05931-YGR
(RELATED CASE)

v.
UNDER ARMOUR, INC.,
Defendant.

26
27

Case No. 4:17-cv-05930-YGR
(RELATED CASE)

v.

23
24

Case No. 4:17-cv-05929-YGR
(RELATED CASE)

v.

20
21

Case No. 4:17-cv-05928-YGR

v.

17
18

OAKLAND DIVISION

v.
FOSSIL GROUP, INC. ET AL.,

Case No. 4:17-cv-05932-YGR
(RELATED CASE)
Case No. 4:17-cv-05933-YGR
(RELATED CASE)

Page 1|3

Defendants.

1
2

v.

3

GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET
AL.,

4
5
6
7

Defendants.
v.
NIKON AMERICAS, INC. ET AL.,

10

v.
CANON U.S.A., INC.,
Defendant.

11
12
13

16

Case No. 4:17-cv-05938-YGR
(RELATED CASE)

v.
GOPRO, INC.,
Defendant.

14
15

Case No. 4:17-cv-05936-YGR
(RELATED CASE)

Defendants.

8
9

Case No. 4:17-cv-05934-YGR
(RELATED CASE)

Case No. 4:17-cv-05939-YGR
(RELATED CASE)

v.
PANASONIC CORPORATION OF
NORTH AMERICA,

17

Case No. 4:17-cv-05941-YGR
(RELATED CASE)

Defendant.

18

v.

19

JK IMAGING LTD.,

20

Defendant.

Case No. 4:17-cv-06881-YGR
(RELATED CASE)

21
22

Having reviewed and considered the Stipulation and Proposal of Plaintiff, Cellspin Soft,

23

Inc. (“Cellspin”), and Defendants, Fitbit, Moov, adidas, Nike, Under Armour, Fossil, Misfit,

24

Garmin, Canon, GoPro, Panasonic, JK Imaging, and Nikon, and upon good cause shown,

25

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

26
27
28

 Pleadings in each related case be allowed to be amended, without the need for leave of
Court, up to, and including, June 5, 2018;
 the limits on discovery in each related case shall proceed pursuant to the presumptive

Page 2|3

1

limits in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, except that

2

a. the number of Requests for Admission in each related case shall be limited to fifty

3

(50) per party, not including requests for the purpose of establishing the

4

genuineness of documents or that documents are kept in the ordinary course of

5

business, which would not be limited; and

6
7

b. the number of depositions per side in each related case shall be limited to twenty
(20) depositions.

8

Further, with respect to the Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery

9

requests, the Court herby clarifies its February 2, 2018, Case Management and Pretrial Order,

10

as follows: As discussed during the CC the rules provide for objections when responses

11

are premature. The parties need only comply with the rules.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

_____________________________________________
THE HONORABLE YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

15

March
5th
DATED this ___ day of _____________, 2018.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Page 3|3