Nitsch v. Dreamworks Animation SKG Inc. et al

Filing 173

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on December 9, 2015. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ROBERT A. NITSCH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 14-CV-04062-LHK
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

v.
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION SKG INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
Attorney for Plaintiffs: Jordan Talge
Attorneys for Defendants Disney, Pixar, Lucasfilm, and Two Pic MC (formerly known as
ImageMovers Digital): Emily Henn and Robert Van Nest
Attorneys for the Sony Defendants: Stephen Bomse and David Goldstein
Attorneys for Defendant DreamWorks Animation: Daniel Swanson and Shannon Mader
Attorney for Defendant Blue Sky Studios: Jonathan Pitt
A case management conference was held on December 9, 2015 A further case
management conference is set for March 23, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. The parties shall file their joint
case management statement by March 16, 2016.
The Court set the following deadlines for the production of privilege logs:
 By December 16, 2015, Pixar and Lucasfilm shall produce the privilege logs from
In re High Tech, No. 11-CV-2509-LHK.
 By December 23, 2015, all Defendants shall produce privilege logs for the instant
case, except each Defendant’s privilege log shall not include any documents
created, sent, or received after that Defendant’s receipt of a Civil Investigative
1
Case No. 14-CV-04062-LHK
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

1
2



3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15



Demand (“CID”) from the U.S. Department of Justice (“USDOJ”) or December 30,
2009, whichever is earlier.
By January 11, 2016, each Defendant shall produce a privilege log for all
documents created, sent, or received after that Defendant’s receipt of a CID from
USDOJ or December 30, 2009, whichever is earlier. The privilege logs produced
by January 11, 2016 shall not include any documents created by, sent to, or
received from outside counsel.
By February 12, 2016, Plaintiffs shall produce their privilege log.

The Court set the following deadlines for document production:
 By December 14, 2015, all Defendants shall have completed their document
production, including the production of spreadsheets.
 By December 16, 2015, Defendants shall produce the documents from In re High
Tech that are the subject of the pending motion to compel, ECF No. 171.
 By December 23, 2015, all Defendants shall produce any documents the
Defendants considered including on a privilege log but ultimately decided not to
include.
 By December 23, 2015, the parties shall agree to search terms for Plaintiffs’
production of documents in response to Defendants’ October 2015 document
requests.
 By January 15, 2016, Plaintiffs’ document production in response to Defendants’
October 2015 document requests shall be 75% complete.
 By January 22, 2016, Plaintiffs’ document production in response to Defendants’
October 2015 document requests shall be complete.
 By February 12, 2016, Plaintiffs shall produce any documents Plaintiffs considered
including on their privilege log but ultimately decided not to include.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court set the following deadlines for depositions:
 The parties shall schedule the deposition of the former Pixar employee witness for
the first half of January 2016.
 The parties shall schedule the deposition of the named Plaintiffs for the first half of
February 2016.
The parties and the Court have agreed that documents that the Court ordered sealed in In re
High Tech shall remain under seal in the instant case. If either party seeks to seal a document that
was ordered sealed in In re High Tech, the sealing motion shall identify the In re High Tech
sealing order’s docket number.
The parties and the Court further agreed that streamlined procedures for sealing motions
would be appropriate in the instant case. The Court proposes the following protocol for sealing
motions:
The parties shall file all administrative motions to file under seal as
joint motions. Prior to filing any such joint motions, counsel for
both parties must meet and confer to decide what information the
parties will request to file under seal.
2
Case No. 14-CV-04062-LHK
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

The parties shall file concurrent with the administrative motion to
file under seal all necessary declarations establishing that the
information sought to be sealed is sealable. For motions to file
under seal relating to dispositive motions, the declarations shall set
forth the “compelling reasons supported by specific factual
findings” that the parties believe outweigh the general history of
access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana v.
City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006).
For motions to file under seal relating to nondispositive motions, the
declarations shall set forth the “particularized” reasons that the
parties believe that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the
information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002). If the
document for which sealing is sought was ordered sealed in In re
High Tech, the sealing motion shall identify the In re High Tech
sealing order’s docket number. Except for the four day deadline for
filing declarations, the parties shall also comply with all other
requirements set forth in Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The parties have requested three business days to respond to the Court’s proposed
protocol. The parties shall file a joint response to the Court’s proposed protocol by December 14,
2015.

12
The case schedule remains as follows:
13

15
16

Scheduled Event

Date

Further CMC

14

March 23, 2016 at 2 p.m.

Last day to amend pleadings/add parties

January 1, 2016

Class Certification briefing

18

Class Certification hearing

Motion: February 1, 2016
Opposition: March 14, 2016
Reply: April 4, 2016
May 5, 2016

19

Fact discovery cutoff

October 14, 2016

20

Opening expert reports
Rebuttal expert reports

November 16, 2016
December 21, 2016

21

Close of expert discovery

January 31, 2017

22

Motions for Summary Judgment and Daubert
Motions
Hearing on MSJ and Daubert Motions

Filed no later than February 27, 2017

17

23

March 23, 2017 at 1:30 p.m.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated: December 9, 2015
3
Case No. 14-CV-04062-LHK
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
Case No. 14-CV-04062-LHK
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER