TimesLines, Inc v. Facebook, Inc.
MOTION by Plaintiff TimesLines, Inc for protective order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit s A - B)(Hultquist, James)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Civil Action No.: 11 CV 6867
Jury Trial Demanded
PLAINTIFF TIMELINES, INC.’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
Plaintiff, Timelines, Inc. (“Timelines”), through its counsel, moves for entry of a
protective order in this case. In support of this motion, Timelines explains as follows:
Basis for Motion
Both Timelines and Defendant Facebook, Inc. have confidential business information that
is the subject of discovery in the case. And both parties want to protect this information from
public disclosure. In fact, Facebook has expressly noted as much in its written discovery
responses; and, on that basis, has withheld requested documentation until “the entry of, and
subject to, an appropriate protective order governing the unauthorized use or disclosure of such
information or documents.” (E.g., Defendant Facebook, Inc.’s Objections and Responses to
Plaintiff Timelines, Inc.’s First Set of Document Requests at p. 2, attached hereto as Exhibit A.)
To that end, on January 4, 2012, when the parties held their initial Rule 26(f) discovery
conference, Facebook’s counsel agreed that a protective order should be agreed to and entered
and that Facebook had a form from prior litigation to share, but it never shared the form despite
follow-on requests. Thus, on March 20, 2012, Timelines’ counsel sent Facebook’s counsel a
proposed Protective Order for entry in the case. (This Protective Order is attached hereto as
Exhibit B.) Timelines has waited almost three weeks for a substantive response to the Protective
Order, but to no avail.
After nearly a week passed without word from Facebook, Timelines’ counsel left a few
voicemail messages for Facebook’s counsel on March 26 and 27, 2012. Facebook’s counsel
responded with a voicemail message on the afternoon of March 27, 2012 and advised Timelines’
counsel to expect a call from another Facebook lawyer, who was reviewing the Protective Order,
on March 28, 2012. Without word on March 28, 2012, Timelines’ counsel received a voicemail
from Facebook’s counsel on the evening of March 29, 2012. Timelines’ counsel returned the
call on March 30, 2012. During the parties’ March 30, 2012 exchange, Facebook’s counsel
promised to provide proposed revisions to the Protective Order later in the day on March 30,
2102 or, at the latest, early the following week (of April 2, 2012). But Timelines’ counsel has
heard nothing more since the afternoon of March 30, 2012.
In an effort to proceed with the parties’ document production without any further delay,
Timelines moves for entry of this Protective Order. Based on Facebook’s previous
representations, Timelines expected that this Protective Order (or some variation thereof) would
have been entered by now so that the parties could have exchanged document productions in
advance of the settlement conference set before Magistrate Judge Nolan on April 17, 2012. But,
due to Facebook’s delay, this is not likely to happen.
WHEREFORE, Timelines moves for entry of this Protective Order and any further relief as the
Court deems just and appropriate.
Dated: April 9, 2012
/s/ Douglas A. Albritton
One of its Attorneys
James T. Hultquist (#6204320)
Douglas Alan Albritton (#6228734)
Raven Moore (#6280665)
REED SMITH LLP
10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60606-7507
(312) 207-6400 (facsimile)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that he filed the foregoing Plaintiff
Timelines, Inc.’s Motion for Entry of Protective Order by means of the Court’s CM/ECF
System, which causes a true and correct copy of the same to be served electronically on all
CM/ECF registered counsel of record, on April 9, 2012.
/s/ Douglas A. Albritton
Douglas A. Albritton
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?