Schlumberger Technology Corporation, Inc v. East Charleston, Inc et al

Filing 36

ORDER re 35 Proposed Order filed by Schlumberger Technology Corporation, Inc. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 12/9/2011. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

RICHARD C. COFFIN (State Bar No. 70562); [e-mail]
J. THOMAS BOER (State Bar No. 199563); [e-mail]
LAURA S. BERNARD (State Bar No. 197556); [e-mail]
BARG COFFIN LEWIS & TRAPP, LLP
350 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94104-1435
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, INC.

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION, Inc., a Texas corporation
Plaintiff,

Case No. C 11-02587 LHK
[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT
ORDER NO. 2

v.
EAST CHARLESTON, INC., a California
corporation; PACIFIC AMERICAN
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a California
Limited Liability Corporation,
Defendants.
AND RELATED ACTIONS

19
20

Plaintiff Schlumberger Technology Corporation (“STC”), defendants East Charleston,

21

Inc. (“ECI”) and Pacific American Management Company (“PAMCO”), and third party

22

defendant Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation (collectively “Parties”) submit the following

23

proposed Case Management Order No. 2, consistent with the Parties’ position in the Rule 26

24

Report and pursuant to the Court’s orders at the November 22, 2011 Case Management

25

Conference and in the November 22, 2011 Minute Order and Case Management Order.

26
27
28
[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2
Case No. C 11-02587 PSG
924322.2

1

I.

Discovery

2

A.

Production of Documents, Including ESI

3

The Parties have agreed that each party producing documents in this case will produce a

4

CD/DVD containing a digitized, searchable (i.e., optical character recognition) version of the

5

documents, imaged in single page TIFF format with document unitization and with industry-

6

standard load files such as Opticon or IPRO LFP format with a delimited text file to indicate

7

where each document starts and stops. All documents produced by any party will be numbered

8

sequentially. Each party will choose a Bates prefix, consisting of uppercase letters, to be listed

9

before the Bates number for each document produced by that party. The image filename will

10
11

correspond with its Bates number.
The requirement to produce a digitized version of documents in TIFF format will not

12

apply to documents with a native format that prohibits printing on standard size paper (e.g.,

13

audio, video, or oversized documents such as maps) or are requested in their native format (e.g.,

14

Excel spreadsheets, AutoCAD, MODFLOW). Such documents will be produced in their native

15

format. The image filename of files produced in native format will correspond with the

16

respective assigned Bates numbers. Production of documents in native format does not preclude

17

a party from also producing those documents in TIFF format marked with Bates numbers if its

18

elects to do so.

19

Standard documents such as e-mails, word processing documents, or hard copy

20

documents that have otherwise been collected in electronic form (e.g., in ZIP files) will be

21

produced in the TIFF, Bates-numbered format, as described above, absent a particular need for

22

these documents in their original format.

23

The provisions of this section do not apply to documents received from third parties

24

(including public agencies) or expert witnesses, to the extent such documents are produced.

25
26
27
28

B.

Privilege Issues
1.

Privilege Logs

In the event that any party withholds documents on the basis of privilege, that party will
produce a privilege log listing the author, all known recipients, the date, a brief description of the
[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2
Case No. C 11-02587 PSG

2
924322.2

1

document, and the privilege claimed. The log must be served no later than 30 days from the date

2

of the document production to which the privilege log applies.
Any challenge to the privilege log must be filed and served within 45 days after the

3
4

production of the privilege log.
The privilege log need not list: 1) confidential communications between a party and its

5
6

counsel regarding this action; 2) confidential work product created by or at the request of counsel

7

for any of the parties in connection with this action; 3) confidential communications between a

8

party and its non-designated consultants regarding this action; 4) confidential communications

9

between a party and its designated expert pursuant to Rule 26; or 5) communications or

10

documents related to any mediation process. These exceptions will not apply to any public or

11

non-confidential documents or to documents that were disclosed to a third party (other than those

12

noted above) in addition to counsel.

13

2.

Inadvertent Production

14

Documents that contain privileged information will be immediately returned to the

15

producing party if the document appears on its face to have been inadvertently produced or if

16

there is a notice from the producing party of the inadvertent production of privileged or work

17

product information. The receiving party will not disclose or use in any manner the inadvertently

18

disclosed privilege information.

19

II.

Confidentiality/Protective Order
The Parties shall follow Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) with the respect to the

20
21

issuance of any protective orders necessary for this matter.

22

III.

23

Dispositive Motions
The section titled “Dispositive Motions” in the November 22, 2011 Minute Order and

24

Case Management Order shall be changed to reflect the Court’s order at the November 22, 2011

25

Case Management Conference as follows:

26

Dispositive Motions shall be filed no later than January 31, 2013, and set for hearing no

27

later than March 7, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. Each side is limited to one summary judgment motion if to

28

be heard on March 7, 2013. Each side is limited to filing one additional summary judgment
[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2
Case No. C 11-02587 PSG

3
924322.2

1
2
3

motion or partial summary judgment motion prior to the January 31, 2013 filing deadline.
DATED: December 1, 2011

BARG COFFIN LEWIS & TRAPP, LLP
By: /s/ Laura S. Bernard
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Schlumberger Technology Corporation, Inc.

4
5
6
7

DATED: December 1, 2011

8

By: /s/ Laura S. Bernard
Attorneys for Third Party Defendant
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation

9
10
11

DATED: December 1, 2011

13
14

16

DATED: December 1, 2011

18
19
20

22

GREBEN & ASSOCIATES
By: /s/ Jan A. Greben
JAN A. GREBEN
JEFF COYNER
DANIELLE DE SMETH
Attorneys for Defendant
Pacific American Management Company

17

21

GREBEN & ASSOCIATES
By: /s/ Jan A. Greben
JAN A. GREBEN
JEFF COYNER
DANIELLE DE SMETH
Attorneys for Defendant
East Charleston, Inc.

12

15

BARG COFFIN LEWIS & TRAPP, LLP

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December _ _______, 2011

23

_____________________________
LUCY H. KOH

24

United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 2
Case No. C 11-02587 PSG

4
924322.2