Fiteq Inc v. Venture Corporation et al

Filing 233

ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/12/2015. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 FITEQ INC, Case No. 13-cv-01946-BLF Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 VENTURE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY FOLLOWING TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 On March 10, 2015, the parties in the above-captioned action appeared telephonically for 13 14 an unreported discovery conference to discuss disputes related to the partial re-opening of fact 15 discovery as ordered by the Court. ECF 194. The Court sets forth its rulings on these disputes 16 below: 17 1. Third-party depositions regarding lost-profits: The Court found, consistent with its 18 tentative ruling, that the six depositions requested by Venture (of Discovery Financial Services, 19 Serve, Dynamics, Applus, Eclipse, and Mandiri Bank) do not relate to Plaintiff’s supplemental 20 damages computation, and thus denies Venture’s request to take these six depositions as a remedy 21 for Plaintiff’s failure to produce a sufficient damages computation pursuant to Federal Rule of 22 Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). 23 2. Third-party depositions regarding “contactless security protocol”: Though the Court 24 indicated in its tentative ruling that it was inclined to deny Venture’s request to take five further 25 depositions (of Visa, MasterCard, American Express, First Data, and Apple Corp.), the parties are 26 ordered to meet and confer on this question because there is a dispute between them as to the 27 scope of Plaintiff’s reliance on the contactless security protocol for purposes of damages 28 calculations. Plaintiff stated that it would send a letter to Defendant stating that it is not seeking 1 lost profits damages related to its contactless security protocol. Plaintiff shall send this letter to 2 Defendant, and file a copy electronically with the Court, no later than March 25, 2015, and the 3 parties shall further seek agreement by this date on the proper scope of additional discovery 4 related to damages calculations, if any. 5 3. Deadline for Plaintiff to produce a list of previously-produced documents on which it 6 based its $300 million valuation: Plaintiff agreed to produce this list no later than March 17, 7 2015. The Court orders the list produced by this date. 8 4. Deadline for Venture’s summary judgment motion to be filed, and other scheduling issues: The Court informed that parties that the August 31, 2015 trial date will be postponed. The 10 parties are ordered to contact Tiffany Salinas-Harwell, the Court’s Courtroom Deputy, to obtain a 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 mutually-agreeable date for trial no earlier than February 2016. The parties are further ordered to 12 schedule a date on which Venture’s summary judgment motion is to be heard—if such a motion is 13 filed—no later than 90 days prior to the rescheduled trial date, and to set a briefing schedule for 14 that motion. The parties must file with the Court a stipulated schedule including these dates no 15 later than March 25, 2015. 16 5. Venture’s attorney’s fees requests: The Court has ordered that Plaintiff will be liable for 17 costs to Venture arising from duplicative discovery regarding damages calculations. Venture may 18 file a motion for such fees, not to exceed five pages, seeking reasonable fees related to duplicative 19 discovery only. Venture’s request to seek attorneys’ fees relating to Plaintiff’s now-abandoned 20 claim for $1 billion in lost profits damages, however, is denied. 21 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 12, 2015 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 2

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?