Mformation Technologies, Inc. v. Research in Motion Limited et al

Filing 533

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 522 Stipulation, filed by Research In Motion Corporation, Research in Motion Limited. Signed by Judge James Ware on 6/24/11. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2011)

8
9

13

re

mes Wa
Judge Ja

ER

H

12

RT

11

Marc H. Cohen (CA Bar No. 168773)
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]

D

RDERE

OO
IT IS S

NO

10

RT
U
O

7

ISTRIC
ES D
TC
T
TA

R NIA

6

FO

5

LI

4

A

3

S

2

Linda S. DeBruin
(Admitted to this Court on September 27,1991)
Christopher R. Liro (pro hac vice)
Tiffany P. Cunningham (pro hac vice)
Aaron D. Charfoos (pro hac vice)
Meredith Zinanni (pro hac vice)
Maria A. Maras (pro hac vice)
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
300 North LaSalle
Chicago, Illinois 60654
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

UNIT
ED

1

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

14
15

Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs
RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED and
RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION

16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

17
18
19

MFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,

Case No. 5:08-CV-04990-JW
Jury Trial Demanded

20

Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant,

21

v.

22
23

RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED,
a Canadian corporation

24

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL
RULES 6-2 AND 7-12 REGARDING
CERTAIN DOCUMENT PRODUCTION,
DEPOSITIONS, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
EXPERT REPORTS

AND

25
26
27
28

RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION,
a Delaware corporation,
Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
Stipulation and Proposed Order Pursuant to Civ. L.R.
6-2 and 7-12 Regarding Certain Document
Production, Depositions, and Supplemental Expert
Reports

Case No. 5:08-CV-04990-JW

1

In this case, Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs Research In Motion Ltd. and Research

2

In Motion Corp. (collectively, “RIM”) caused the Central District of California to issue a subpoena

3

to Mesirow Financial Consulting, LLC (“Mesirow”) on February 28, 2011. Plaintiff and

4

Counterclaim Defendant Mformation Technologies, Inc. (“Mformation”) moved to quash that

5

subpoena. On June 13, 2011, the Central District of California issued a tentative ruling denying

6

Mformation’s motion to quash. At the hearing before the Central District of California on June 14,

7

2011, Mformation agreed to withdraw its motion to quash based on that tentative ruling.

8

In addition, on May 17, 2011 in this Court, RIM filed a motion to compel Mformation to

9

produce Mesirow-related documents that Mformation previously clawed-back as attorney-client

10

privileged. (Dkt. 497.) In that motion, RIM sought an Order from this Court instructing Mformation

11

to withdraw its claims of privilege and produce documents withheld or redacted that relate to a

12

valuation of Mformation’s patents performed by a third party financial services advisor, Mesirow.

13

(Id. at 1.) Mformation has now agreed to produce those documents as well as a Rule 30(b)(6)

14

witness to testify as to them.

15

Although discovery in this case closed on May 13, 2011, RIM’s subpoena to Mesirow was

16

timely issued over two months before the close of discovery, and called for compliance prior to the

17

close of discovery. In addition, RIM’s motion to compel (Dkt. 497) was timely filed pursuant to

18

Civ. L.R. 37-3 within 7 days of the close of discovery.

19
20
21

Based on those agreements and to avoid further disputes regarding discovery relating to
Mesirow, Mformation and RIM hereby agree:
1.

Mformation shall produce the documents that are the subject of RIM’s motion to

22

compel in this Court (i.e., the documents that Mformation previously withheld or redacted that relate

23

to a valuation performed by Mesirow) in unredacted form on June 17, 2011.

24

2.

The parties will work together to schedule the continued deposition of Mformation’s

25

Rule 30(b)(6) witness, to testify as to the Mesirow-related documents on or before July 15, 2011.

26

Mformation shall not object based on attorney-client privilege or work product protection to

27

questioning on the Mesirow-related documents during that deposition.

28

Stipulation and Proposed Order Pursuant to Civ. L.R.
6-2 and 7-12 Regarding Certain Document
Production, Depositions, and Supplemental Expert
Reports

Case No. 5:08-CV-04990-JW

1

3.

RIM shall withdraw its motion to compel (Dkt. 497) as moot, after Mformation

2

produces the documents that are the subject of RIM’s motion to compel in this Court in unredacted

3

form.

4

4.

Mformation withdraws its objections to Mesirow producing documents pursuant to

5

RIM’s subpoena, and Mformation shall inform Mesirow that Mformation no longer objects to that

6

production.

7

documents on or before June 22, 2011.

8

5.

Mformation and RIM will work with Mesirow to schedule production of those

The parties will work together and with Mesirow to schedule the deposition of a

9

Mesirow witness pursuant to RIM’s subpoena on or before July 8, 2011. Mformation shall not

10

object based on attorney-client privilege or work product protection to questioning on the Mesirow-

11

related documents during that deposition.

12

6.

RIM’s damages expert may submit a supplemental report limited to addressing the

13

Mesirow-related documents and deposition testimony on or before July 27, 2011. Mformation’s

14

damages expert may submit a supplemental report limited to rebuttal of this supplemental report of

15

RIM’s damages expert on or before August 9, 2011.

16
17
18

7.

The discovery period in this case, which closed on May 13, 2011, is extended for the

limited purpose of taking only the discovery detailed above in Paragraphs 1-6.
8.

By entering into this stipulation, Mformation is not waiving its rights to object during

19

the Mformation and Mesirow depositions referred to above, other than as expressly stated above.

20

Mformation also has not waived, and hereby reserves, its rights to object at any time to the

21

admissibility of any of the documents and testimony referred to above, on all grounds other than as

22

expressly stated above.

23
24
25
26
27
28

Stipulation and Proposed Order Pursuant to Civ. L.R.
6-2 and 7-12 Regarding Certain Document
Production, Depositions, and Supplemental Expert
Reports

-2-

Case No. 5:08-CV-04990-JW

1

DATED: June 17, 2011

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP

2
By:
3
4

/s/ Shawn E. McDonald
Amar L. Thakur
Shawn E. McDonald
Justin E. Gray

Attorneys for Mformation Technologies, Inc.

5
6
7

DATED: June 17, 2011

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

8

By:

9
10
11
12
13

/s/ Tiffany P. Cunningham
Linda S. DeBruin
Mark H. Cohen (CA Bar No. 168773)
Christopher R. Liro
Tiffany P. Cunningham
Aaron D. Charfoos
Meredith Zinanni
Maria A. Maras

Attorneys for Research In Motion Limited and
Research In Motion Corporation

14
15
16

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding signatures, Tiffany P.

17

Cunningham hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Stipulation and Proposed Order Pursuant to Civ. L.R.
6-2 and 7-12 Regarding Certain Document
Production, Depositions, and Supplemental Expert
Reports

-3-

Case No. 5:08-CV-04990-JW

1
2

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

3
4

Date: June 24, 2011

, 2011
James Ware
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Stipulation and Proposed Order Pursuant to Civ. L.R.
6-2 and 7-12 Regarding Certain Document
Production, Depositions, and Supplemental Expert
Reports

-4-

Case No. 5:08-CV-04990-JW

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on June 17, 2011 a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically

3

through the Court’s CM/ECF system, with notice of case activity automatically generated and sent

4

electronically to all parties.

5
6

DATED: June 17, 2011

7

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Frank Carlow
Frank Carlow
Intellectual Property Legal Assistant

8
9

Linda S. DeBruin
(Admitted to this Court on September 27, 1991)
Christopher R. Liro (pro hac vice)
Tiffany P. Cunningham (pro hac vice)
Aaron D. Charfoos (pro hac vice)
Meredith Zinanni (pro hac vice)
Maria A. Maras (pro hac vice)
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
300 North LaSalle
Chicago, Illinois 60654
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Marc H. Cohen (CA Bar No. 168773)
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]

20
21
22
23

Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs
Research In Motion Limited and Research In Motion
Corporation

24
25
26
27
28

Stipulation and Proposed Order Pursuant to Civ. L.R.
6-2 and 7-12 Regarding Certain Document
Production, Depositions, and Supplemental Expert
Reports

-5-

Case No. 5:08-CV-04990-JW