Milans v. Netflix, Inc.
Filing
375
ORDER by Judge Howard R. Lloyd Re: 360 Discovery Dispute Report #1. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2014)
1
*E-Filed: August 18, 2014*
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
For the Northern District of California
NOT FOR CITATION
8
United States District Court
7
SAN JOSE DIVISION
No. C11-00379 EJD (HRL)
11
12
IN RE: NETFLIX PRIVACY LITIGATION
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY
DISPUTE REPORT #1
13
[Re: Docket No. 360]
14
15
____________________________________/
16
This is a consolidated class action brought against Netflix, Inc., on the grounds that Netflix
17
unlawfully retained and disclosed customers’ personally identifiable information in violation of the
18
Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710. Plaintiffs Jeff Milans and Peter Comstock,
19
individually and on behalf of the Class, filed an unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
20
Class Action Settlement, which Judge Edward J. Davila granted. Bradley Schulz, among others,
21
filed an objection to the Settlement. Judge Davila granted final approval of the Settlement. Schulz
22
appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
23
Plaintiffs filed a motion for additional discovery concerning the merits of the Objectors’
24
appeals, their motivations, and their financial arrangements with their attorneys. Judge Davila
25
granted the motion. Plaintiffs attempted to schedule a deposition for Schulz several times, but
26
Christopher A. Bandas, counsel for Schulz, failed to respond. After Plaintiffs served Schulz with a
27
notice of deposition, Bandas informed Plaintiffs’ counsel that he believed that Schulz could not be
28
compelled to appear for a deposition absent service of a subpoena to appear because he was a non-
1
party. Plaintiffs’ numerous attempts to serve Schulz with a subpoena to appear at a deposition and a
2
subpoena to produce documents were unsuccessful. On April 28, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion to
3
compel the deposition of and the production of documents by Schulz, which was referred to the
4
undersigned. Docket Nos. 352, 354.
Under Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Civil Local Rule 37-1(a), and
5
meet and confer in an effort to resolve any discovery disputes prior to seeking judicial intervention.
8
The Standing Order generally provides that parties may seek judicial intervention only after an in-
9
person meeting between lead counsel fails to resolve the discovery dispute, in which case the parties
10
For the Northern District of California
the undersigned’s Standing Order re: Civil Discovery Disputes (“Standing Order”), parties must
7
United States District Court
6
shall file a Discovery Dispute Joint Report. “[R]efusal to attend or to participate meaningfully will
11
be grounds for sanctions and/or for entry of an order in favor of the other side.” Standing Order §
12
2.C.i.
13
Through email, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Bandas of Plaintiffs’ intent to file a motion to
14
compel Schulz’s deposition and asked for Bandas’s availability to meet and confer regarding their
15
positions. Plaintiffs’ counsel attempted to schedule a meet and confer three times by email and
16
letter and three times by telephone. Bandas failed to respond. Because Bandas has refused to meet
17
and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition of and the
18
production of documents by Schulz is granted. Schulz is ordered to appear and testify at deposition
19
and produce documents in accordance with Judge Davila’s Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for
20
Appeal Bonds and Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Additional Discovery, Docket No. 307, within
21
thirty (30) days of the date this Order is filed.
22
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 18, 2014
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
27
28
2
1
C11-00379-EJD Notice will be electronically mailed to:
2
Anthony Joseph Calero ajc@llcllp.com
3
Ari Jonathan Scharg ascharg@edelson.com
4
Benjamin Harris Richman brichman@edelson.com
5
Brett Langdon Gibbs brett.gibbs@gmail.com
6
Chandler Randolph Givens cgivens@edelson.com
7
Christopher Andress Bandas cbandas@bandaslawfirm.com, dlopez@bandaslawfirm.com,
kandersen@bandaslawfirm.com
8
Clinton Arthur Krislov clint@krislovlaw.com, michalene@krislovlaw.com, ro@krislovlaw.com
9
David Christopher Parisi dcparisi@parisihavens.com
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
11
David Eldridge Bower dbower@faruqilaw.com, brohr@faruqilaw.com, ecf@faruqilaw.com,
ecfca@faruqilaw.com, mblackman@faruqilaw.com
12
David Lincoln Axelrod sierralaw@gmail.com
13
James Dominick Larry nlarry@edelson.com
14
Jay Edelson jedelson@edelson.com
15
Jeffrey Neil Wilens jeff@lakeshorelaw.org
16
Joseph Darrell Palmer darrell.palmer@palmerlegalteam.com, maria.carapia@palmerlegalteam.com
17
Joseph Jeremy Siprut jsiprut@siprut.com, lwonsey@siprut.com
18
Keith E. Eggleton keggleton@wsgr.com
19
Marc Lawrence Godino mgodino@glancylaw.com, info@glancylaw.com
20
Mark Stephen Eisen meisen@edelson.com
21
Michael Adam Sweet msweet@foxrothschild.com, arocha@foxrothschild.com,
ddelarocha@foxrothschild.com
22
Paul D. Wexler paulwexler@kvwmail.com
23
Rafey S. Balabanian rbalabanian@edelson.com
24
Rodney Grant Strickland , Jr rstrickland@wsgr.com, lkoontz@wsgr.com, rdean@wsgr.com
25
Sean Patrick Reis sreis@edelson.com, docket@edelson.com
26
Steve A Miller sampc01@gmail.com
27
Timothy Ricardo Hanigan trhanigan@gmail.com
28
William Charles Gray williamcgray@gmail.com
3
1
Notice will be mailed to:
2
Johnny Dee Knadler
Attorney at Law
P O Box 156515
San Francisco, CA 94115
3
4
5
6
Roy A. Katriel
The Katriel Law Firm
12707 High Bluff Drive
Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92130
7
8
Thomas L. Cox
4934 Tremont
Dallas, TX 75214
9
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
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
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?