Nygren v. Hewlett-Packard Company

Filing 104

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 103 Stipulation filed by Stephen Shifflette, Nathan Nygren, Amy Fromkin. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 2/8/2010. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2010)

** E-filed February 8, 2010 ** 1 2 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 HOWARD HOLDERNESS (SBN 169814) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415.442.1001 E-mail: [e-mail] KRISTOFOR T. HENNING (PAB 85047) (Pro Hac Vice application forthcoming) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 215.963.5001 E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MICHAEL F. RAM (SBN 104805) RAM & OLSON LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415.433.7311 E-mail: [e-mail] MARC H. EDELSON (Pro Hac Vice) EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC 45 W. Court Street Doylestown, PA 18901 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 215.230.8735 E-mail: [e-mail] JEFFREY L. KODROFF JOHN A. MACORETTA (Pro Hac Vice) SPECTOR, ROSEMAN, KODROFF, & WILLIS, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 215.496.6611 E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NATHAN NYGREN, STEPHEN SHIFFLETTE and AMY FROMKIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. Action filed: Trial: November 14, 2007 October 5, 2010 Case No. 07-05793 (JW) STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING EXPERT DISCOVERY

Case No. 07-05793 (JW) ­ STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER REGARDING EXPERT DISCOVERY

1

1 2 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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following Stipulation and Order ("Order") shall govern expert discovery in this litigation: 1. In order to avoid consuming the parties' and the Court's time and resources on

potential discovery issues relating to experts, the parties have agreed to certain limitations on the scope of expert-related discovery. Neither the terms of the Order nor the parties' agreement to them implies that any of the information restricted from discovery in this Order would otherwise be discoverable. This Stipulation and Order represents the entire agreement between the parties relating to expert discovery and all prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, whether oral or written by a party or such party's legal counsel, are merged herein. 2. Without expanding the scope of otherwise discoverable information, the following

categories of documents, data and information need not be disclosed by any party and are outside the scope of permissible expert discovery for any time during the pendency of the abovecaptioned litigation, including any time prior to the entry of this Order: (a) any written or oral communications (including notes, emails and/or

memoranda memorializing the same) between or among: (1) expert witnesses and counsel relating to the testimony of the expert and/or the drafting and/or preparation of any reports, except as provided in ¶ 4; and/or (2) expert witnesses and their respective staffs relating to the testimony of the expert and/or the drafting and/or preparation of any reports, except as provided in ¶ 4; and (b) any notes, draft reports, draft studies, draft work papers or other

preliminary calculations, computations, data runs or work prepared by, for, or at the direction of an expert witness

Case No. 07-05793 (JW) ­ STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER REGARDING EXPERT DISCOVERY

2

1 2 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

3.

As a result of this Order, the parties and the experts do not have any obligation to

retain any of the materials identified in paragraph 2. 4. The protections against discovery contained in paragraph 2 above will not apply to

any communications, documents, data, statistical analyses, notes, computations, data runs, tests or work or other information upon which an expert witness relies for any of his or her opinion(s) in this matter. Data, statistical analyses, or other information (including any calculation or exhibit) upon which an expert relies for any of his or her opinion(s) in this matter shall be produced or, if already produced, identified to the other party. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Order, in the event an expert performs any physical tests on any computer or wireless device in connection with his or her retention in this case, then all such physical tests performed or referred to by that expert, and the results thereof, shall be subject to requests for discovery by an adverse party, provided that nothing within this paragraph shall prohibit or prejudice any party from asserting any appropriate objections to discovery and/or the admissibility of such physical tests and/or the results thereof. 5. Nothing in this stipulation shall be construed to prevent deposition questions

relating to the substance of the testifying expert's opinions (including alternative theories, methodologies, variables, or assumptions that the expert may or may not have considered in formulating his or her opinions or in preparing his or her report), the process by which those opinions and/or the experts report were developed; or to any communications (including communications from counsel), documents, data, statistical analyses, or other information upon which an expert witness relies for any of his or her opinion(s) in this matter. 6. Nothing in this stipulation shall be construed to preclude reasonable questions at

deposition concerning the expert's compensation, hours expended in preparing his or her report and testimony, and frequency and duration of meetings with counsel regarding his or her report.

Case No. 07-05793 (JW) ­ STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER REGARDING EXPERT DISCOVERY

3

1 2 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

7.

Each expert submitting a report shall list all matters in which the expert testified in

any deposition, trial, or hearing, or submitted a report, in the last five years. The disclosure shall identify the case caption, the court in which it was pending, and the party that retained the expert. 8. No subpoenas (for depositions or documents) need be served on any testifying

expert from whom a report or declaration is provided. Instead, the party retaining such expert will make the expert available for deposition at a time mutually agreed to by the parties and consistent with the Court's scheduling orders. In the event a responding party fails to so cooperate in good faith, the party seeking discovery may serve any appropriate subpoenas and this Order will not be used as the basis for an objection to such subpoenas. 9. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Order, all documents specifically

referred to and/or relied upon by an expert in rendering any opinions in this case and/or in any expert report, declaration, affidavit or other such document submitted in this case shall be identified in such expert submission and produced upon request by an adverse party. 10. The parties agree to comply with this Order pending the Court's approval and

entry of this Order. 11. A copy of the signed Order shall be served upon all counsel of record within seven

(7) days of its entry. Dated: February 8, 2010 By: /s/ Kristofor T. Henning Kristofor T. Henning (Pro Hac Vice application forthcoming) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 215.963.5001 E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Case No. 07-05793 (JW) ­ STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER REGARDING EXPERT DISCOVERY

4

1 2 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

Dated: February 8, 2010

By:

Michael F. Ram Michael F. Ram (SBN 104805) RAM & OLSON LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415.433.7311 E-mail: [e-mail] Jeffrey L. Kodroff John A. Macoretta (Pro Hac Vice) SPECTOR, ROSEMAN, KODROFF, & WILLIS, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 215.496.6611 E-mail: [e-mail] Marc H. Edelson (Pro Hac Vice) EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC 45 W. Court Street Doylestown, PA 18901 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 215.230.8735 E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiffs

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 Dated: February____, 2010

____________________________________ The Honorable Howard R. Lloyd James Ware United States Magistrate Judge District Judge

Case No. 07-05793 (JW) ­ STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER REGARDING EXPERT DISCOVERY

5