In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation

Filing 420

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting #371 Stipulation Regarding Document Admissibility and Authentication.(lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Robert A. Mittelstaedt (State Bar No. 60359)
[e-mail]
Craig A. Waldman (State Bar No. 229943)
[e-mail]
David C. Kiernan (State Bar No. 215335)
[e-mail]
Lin W. Kahn (State Bar No. 261387)
[e-mail]
Peter A. Julian (State Bar No. 277673)
[e-mail]
JONES DAY
555 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

10

Attorneys for Defendant
Adobe Systems Inc.

11

[Additional counsel listed on signature page]

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

14
15
16

IN RE: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

17

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

18

ALL ACTIONS

Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING DOCUMENT
ADMISSIBILITY AND
AUTHENTICATION

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding
Document Admissibility and Authentication
Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK

1

The individual and representative plaintiffs Siddharth Hariharan, Brandon Marshall,

2

Michael Devine, Mark Fichtner, and Daniel Stover (“Plaintiffs”) and defendants Adobe Systems

3

Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corp., Intuit Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd., and Pixar (“Defendants”),

4

by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby enter into this Stipulation, subject to court

5

approval, with reference to the following facts:

6
7

WHEREAS, the parties have collectively produced in excess of 340,000 documents in this
case, amounting to more than 1,825,000 pages;

8
9
10

WHEREAS, on February 27, 2013, Plaintiffs served on each Defendant Requests for
Admissions and the Third Set of Interrogatories regarding the authenticity and admissibility of
documents produced in this case;

11

WHEREAS, on March 12, 2013, Plaintiffs served on Defendants deposition notices

12

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), seeking testimony related to, among other

13

things, the authenticity and admissibility of documents produced in this case;

14

WHEREAS, the fact discovery cutoff is March 29, 2013;

15

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL,

16

that:

17

1.

Plaintiffs withdraw the 30(b)(6) deposition notices served March 12, 2013.

18

2.

Plaintiffs withdraw the February 27, 2013 Requests for Admissions and Third Set

19

of Interrogatories.

20

3.

Except as provided herein, all documents produced by Plaintiffs or Defendants in

21

this case bearing a bates number are authentic true and correct copies of documents within the

22

possession, custody or control of the producing party, and the metadata and email header

23

information produced by Plaintiffs or Defendants accurately reflects the senders, recipients and/or

24

custodians of email and other documents.

25

4.

Plaintiffs and Defendants reserve the right to challenge the authenticity of specific

26

documents and their associated metadata after another party identifies them for use in this case. If

27

a party challenges the authenticity of a document, the producing party will permit appropriate

28

discovery on the limited issue of authenticity of that specific document, without regard to the fact
-2-

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding
Document Admissibility and Authentication
Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK

1
2

discovery cutoff date.
5.

Plaintiffs and Defendants will provide a list of documents that they request the

3

parties stipulate are business records pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6). For any such

4

documents that any party declines to so stipulate, the producing party will permit appropriate

5

discovery on the limited issue of whether that specific document meets the business record

6

requirements of Rule 803(6), without regard to the discovery cutoff date.

7

6.

The parties will agree to a schedule for the timing of the Plaintiffs’ and

8

Defendants’ identification of documents they intend to use and documents they request producing

9

parties stipulate are business records, the producing parties’ response, and any related discovery.

10

7.

Documents whose authenticity and business records status has been established

11

pursuant to this stipulation can be introduced into evidence without calling at trial a custodian of

12

the document as a sponsoring witness.

13
14
15
16
17
18

8.

By entering into this stipulation, the parties hereby preserve and do not waive any

other objections that they may have to the admissibility of a particular document.
9.

Except as provided herein, this stipulation does not otherwise affect the schedule

for the case.
Dated: March 28, 2013

19

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
By:

20
21

/s/ Kelly M. Dermody
KELLY M. DERMODY
Attorneys for individual and representative Plaintiffs
Siddharth Hariharan, Brandon Marshall, Michael Devine,
Mark Fichtner, and Daniel Stover

22
23
24
25
26

Dated: March 28, 2013

JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM
By:

/s/ Joseph Saveri
JOSEPH SAVERI
Attorneys for individual and representative Plaintiffs
Siddharth Hariharan, Brandon Marshall, Michael Devine,
Mark Fichtner, and Daniel Stover

27
28
-3-

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding
Document Admissibility and Authentication
Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK

1

Dated: March 28, 2013

2

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
By:

3
4
5
6

Dated: March 28, 2013

7

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
By:

8
9
10

Dated: March 28, 2013

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

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

JONES DAY

11
By:

12
13

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

14
15

Dated: March 28, 2013

16

MAYER BROWN LLP
By:

17
18
19

Dated: March 28, 2013

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

BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP

20
By:

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Dated: March 28, 2013

/s/ Frank Hinman
Frank Hinman
Attorneys for Defendant
INTEL CORPORATION

JONES DAY
By:

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

28
-4-

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding
Document Admissibility and Authentication
Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK

1
2
3
4

Dated: March 28, 2013

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
By:

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

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

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding
Document Admissibility and Authentication
Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK

1

Filer’s Attestation

2

I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained

3

from all the signatories.

4
5

/s/ Robert Mittelstaedt
Robert Mittelstaedt
Jones Day

Dated: March 28, 2013

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

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding
Document Admissibility and Authentication
Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK

1

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3

May 14, 2013
Dated: ______________________

4

__________________________________
HON. LUCY H. KOH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6

SFI-819904v5

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

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding
Document Admissibility and Authentication
Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK