Quia Corporation v. Mattel, Inc. et al

Filing 111

ORDER granting 96 -3 defendants' motion to compel expert discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 6/2/2011. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2011)

1
2

*E-FILED 06-02-2011*

3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

7

No. C10-01902 JF (HRL)

QUIA CORPORATION,

12

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO COMPEL EXPERT
DISCOVERY

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14
15

MATTEL, INC. and FISHER-PRICE, INC.,
Defendants.
/

16
17

Defendants move to compel expert discovery. This court directed the parties to (1)

18

meet-and-confer in person to resolve their disputes and (2) submit a joint report as to any that

19

remained unresolved. (Docket No. 99, May 17, 2011 Order). Having reviewed the parties’

20

joint report (Docket No. 101), this court grants defendants’ motion to compel.

21

In essence, plaintiff argues that the instant motion should be denied because defendants

22

served their expert subpoenas after the April 22, 2011 fact discovery cutoff. Alternatively,

23

plaintiff suggests that defendants should have specified in the parties’ stipulated scheduling

24

order (Docket No. 94) that expert subpoenas could be served during the period for expert

25

discovery, which closes on June 3, 2011. As stated in its May 17, 2011 order, this court does

26

not agree with plaintiff’s interpretation of the court’s scheduling order. Plaintiff otherwise

27

responds to the instant motion by raising issues concerning fact discovery which (1) are not

28

before this court on the instant motion and (2) have nothing to do with the expert discovery in

1

question. Defendants say that the subpoenas call for information required to be disclosed by

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. This court is told that plaintiff now agrees to produce that information. As

3

for other requested categories of documents, defendants argue that they pertain to, among other

4

things, issues of expert credibility and possible bias. Plaintiff has made no persuasive argument

5

or showing to the contrary.

6

Accordingly, to the extent the subpoenaed documents have not already been produced,

order. To the extent any documents legitimately are privileged or otherwise protected from

9

discovery, plaintiff shall produce, within 5 days from the date of this order, a privilege log

10

identifying what documents are being withheld and the basis for the asserted privilege. See

11
For the Northern District of California

they shall be produced forthwith, and in any event, no later than 5 days from the date of this

8

United States District Court

7

FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(5). Plaintiff is advised that gamesmanship in the designation of

12

documents as privileged or otherwise protected from discovery will not be countenanced.

13

This court finds that defendants should have an opportunity to further depose plaintiffs’

14

experts about documents that have yet to be produced or that were not produced sufficiently in

15

advance of plaintiffs’ experts’ depositions that already have been taken. Such relief, however,

16

is conditioned on the presiding judge’s determination that the present case schedule should be

17

modified to allow additional time for defendants to examine plaintiff’s experts about those

18

documents.
SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

Dated:

June 2, 2011
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1

5:10-cv-01902-JF Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Bobby A. Ghajar

3

Kelly Wong Craven

4

Mark J. Nagle

5

Peter Edward Moll , Esq

6

Robert L. Meylan

7

Shaunt Toros Arevian

8

Shaw Pittman

9

Steven Marc Weinberg

[e-mail]

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

[e-mail], [e-mail]

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3