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)

Download PDF
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THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 For the Northern District of California NOT FOR CITATION 8 United States District Court 7 SAN JOSE DIVISION No. C11-00379 EJD (HRL) 11 12 IN RE: NETFLIX PRIVACY LITIGATION ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE REPORT #1 13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?