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)

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