In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation

Filing 104

ORDER Concerning Testifying Expert Discovery. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 1/23/2012. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2012)

Case5:11-cv-02509-LHK Document99 Filed12/05/11 Page1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Robert A. Mittelstaedt (State Bar No. 60359)
[e-mail]
Craig E. Stewart (State Bar No. 129530)
[e-mail]
JONES DAY
555 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Catherine T. Broderick (State Bar No. 251231)
[e-mail]
JONES DAY
1755 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
INTUIT INC.

11
[Additional Parties and Counsel Listed on Signature Page.]
12
13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN JOSE DIVISION

16
17

IN RE: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK

19

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

20

ALL ACTIONS

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER CONCERNING TESTIFYING
EXPERT DISCOVERY

18

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION CONCERNING
TESTIFYING EXPERT DISCOVERY
MASTER DOCKET NO. 11-CV-2509-LHK

Case5:11-cv-02509-LHK Document99 Filed12/05/11 Page2 of 4

1
2
3
4

STIPULATION CONCERNING TESTIFYING EXPERT DISCOVERY
The parties stipulate to the following regarding the scope of testifying expert discovery in
the above-captioned matter:
1.

This Stipulation And Order Concerning Testifying Expert Discovery

5

(“Stipulation”) will govern discovery from testifying experts in the above-captioned matter.

6

Subject to the limitations herein, the parties shall comply with Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of

7

Civil Procedure. To the extent that this Stipulation imposes limitations on discovery which

8

otherwise would be available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties have agreed

9

to any such limitations. Neither the terms of the Stipulation nor the parties’ agreement to them

10

shall be considered an admission by any person that any of the information restricted from

11

discovery by this Stipulation would otherwise be discoverable or admissible.

12
13

2.

The following types of information shall not be the subject of discovery by

subpoena, deposition or otherwise:
a. the content of communications among and between:

14
15

i. counsel and testifying expert witnesses;

16

ii. testifying expert witnesses and their respective staffs;

17

iii. testifying expert witnesses and consultants;

18

iv. communications among or between testifying expert witnesses; and
b. notes, drafts, written communications, preliminary or intermediate

19
20

calculations, computations or other data runs, or other types of preliminary

21

work created by, for, or at the direction of testifying expert witnesses.

22

3.

The protections against discovery contained in the preceding paragraph shall not

23

apply to any communications or documents upon which a testifying expert relies as a basis for

24

any of his or her opinions or reports.

25

Consented and agreed to by the following parties:

26
27
28
-1-

STIPULATION CONCERNING
TESTIFYING EXPERT DISCOVERY
MASTER DOCKET NO. 11-CV-2509-LHK

Case5:11-cv-02509-LHK Document99 Filed12/05/11 Page3 of 4

1

Dated: December 5, 2011

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP

2
By:

3
4

/s/ Joseph R. Saveri
JOSEPH R. SAVERI
Interim Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

5
6

Dated: December 5, 2011

7

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
By:

8
9
10

Dated: December 5, 2011

/s/ Michael F. Tubach
MICHAEL F. TUBACH
Attorneys for Defendant
APPLE INC.

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP

11
By:

12
13

/s/ Daniel Purcell
DANIEL PURCELL
Attorneys for Defendant
LUCASFILM LTD.

14
15

Dated: December 5, 2011

16

JONES DAY
By:

17
18
19

Dated: December 5, 2011

/s/ David C. Kiernan
DAVID C. KIERNAN
Attorneys for Defendant
ADOBE SYSTEMS INC.

MAYER BROWN LLP

20
By:

21
22

/s/ Lee H. Rubin
LEE H. RUBIN
Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.

23
24

Dated: December 5, 2011

BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP

25
By:
26

/s/ Zachery J. Alinder
ZACHERY J. ALINDER Attorneys for Defendant
INTEL CORPORATION

27
28
-2-

STIPULATION CONCERNING
TESTIFYING EXPERT DISCOVERY
MASTER DOCKET NO. 11-CV-2509-LHK

Case5:11-cv-02509-LHK Document99 Filed12/05/11 Page4 of 4

1

Dated: December 5, 2011

JONES DAY

2
By:

3
4

/s/ Robert A. Mittelstaedt
ROBERT A. MITTELSTAEDT
Attorneys for Defendant
INTUIT INC.

5
6

Dated: December 5, 2011

7

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
By:

8
9

/s/ Emily Johson Henn
EMILY JOHNSON HENN
Attorneys for Defendant
PIXAR

10
FILER’S ATTESTATION

11

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, § X(B), I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in
12
the filing of the document has been obtained from all the signatories.
13
14
Dated: December 5, 2011
15

By:

/s/ Catherine T. Broderick
CATHERINE T. BRODERICK

16
17
18

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

Dated: January 23, 2012

_________________________
Honorable Lucy H. Koh
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

STIPULATION CONCERNING
TESTIFYING EXPERT DISCOVERY
MASTER DOCKET NO. 11-CV-2509-LHK