Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 71 Filed 05/14/19 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`Michael Liu Su (Cal. Bar No. 300590)
`michael.liu.su@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`3300 Hillview Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone:
`(650) 849-6600
`Facsimile:
`(650) 849-6666
`
`Lionel M. Lavenue (pro hac vice)
`lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com
`Bradford C. Schulz (pro hac vice)
`bradford.schulz@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`Two Freedom Square
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190
`Telephone:
`(571) 203-2700
`Facsimile:
`(202) 408-4400
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`Sarah G. Hartman (Cal. Bar No. 281751)
`shartman@brownrudnick.com
`Alfred R. Fabricant (pro hac vice)
`afabricant@brownrudnick.com
`Peter Lambrianakos (pro hac vice)
`plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, III (pro hac vice)
`vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: (212) 209-4800
`Facsimile: (212) 209-4801
`
`Arjun Sivakumar (Cal. Bar No. 297787)
`asivakumar@brownrudnick.com
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`2211 Michelson Drive, Seventh Floor
`Irvine, California 92612
`Telephone: (949) 752-7100
`Facsimile: (949) 252-1514
`
`Attorneys for Defendant AGIS SOFTWARE
`DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`v.
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-06185-HSG
`(Former Case No. 2:17-cv-00517-JRG)
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`JOINT STIPULATION AND
`DISCOVERY ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT STIPULATION AND DISCOVERY ORDER
`FOR CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06185-HSG
`
`
`
`
`ZTE (USA) INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 71 Filed 05/14/19 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`1.
`2.
`
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12 and the Court’s Scheduling Order (Dkt. 63), the parties
`hereby agree to the terms of the following proposed discovery order and respectfully request that the
`Court enter the proposed order.
`
`
`Upon the stipulation of the parties, the Court ORDERS as follows:
`Protective Orders. The Court will enter the parties’ Agreed Protective Order.
`Discovery Limitations. The discovery in this case is limited to:
`(a) Interrogatories: Each party may serve up to 25 interrogatories to the other party.
`(b) Requests for Admission: Each party may serve up to 40 requests for admission to
`the other party. There is no limit on the number of requests for admission directed
`to the authentication of documents and things and/or whether a document
`qualifies as a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`(c) Depositions of Parties, Third Parties, and Experts:
`a. Each party may take up to 30 total hours of deposition testimony
`(inclusive of both 30(b)(1) and 30(b)(6) depositions) of the other party.
`Depositions of experts and third parties do not count against these limits.
`The parties agree that witnesses will be deposed at a location convenient
`for the witness (ordinarily the place of residence or employment), except
`that the parties will meet and confer and work together in good faith on the
`location of depositions should any party wish to conduct a deposition at an
`alternative location.
`b. All individual depositions shall be limited to seven hours in accordance
`with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`c. To the extent a Rule 30(b)(1) witness is designated as the corporate
`representative for one or more Rule 30(b)(6) topics, the witness shall be
`deposed in both capacities in a single deposition of seven hours (or, in the
`case of the named inventors, 10 hours total).
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`JOINT STIPULATION AND DISCOVERY ORDER
`FOR CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06185-HSG
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 71 Filed 05/14/19 Page 3 of 5
`
`d. Depositions on written questions of custodians of business records for
`third parties shall not count against any of the deposition limits herein.
`e. Each party is each limited to 4 testifying expert witnesses.
`(d) Third Parties: Each party may take up to 30 hours of non-party deposition
`testimony. The parties agree to meet and confer in good faith in the event that a
`party seeks a reasonable enlargement of the agreed-upon hours of non-party
`deposition testimony based upon case developments after the date of this Order.
`(e) Any party may later move to modify these limitations for good cause or by
`agreement.
`Proposed Stipulations by the Parties Regarding Discovery. The parties stipulate to the
`following:
`(a) The parties agree that they will serve each other with copies of any subpoena or
`deposition notice directed to a third-party. A party receiving documents from a third
`party will provide copies of those documents to each other party within 5 business
`days of receiving those documents. The parties agree to consult with each other
`before scheduling any third-party deposition and to provide at least 5 business days’
`notice of the selected court reporting agency to allow for the coordination of remote
`depositions, including the logistics of soft copy exhibits.
`(b) The parties agree that, unless good cause is shown, the parties shall not be required to
`log any privileged documents created on or after June 21, 2017.
`(c) The parties agree to accept service by email to all counsel of record for the party to be
`served.
`(d) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), inadvertent production of materials
`covered by the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection is not a waiver in
`a pending case or any other federal or state proceeding. For example, the mere
`production of privilege or work-product protected documents in this case as part of a
`mass production is not itself a waiver in this case or any other federal or state
`proceeding. A producing party may assert privilege or protection over inadvertently
`JOINT STIPULATION AND DISCOVERY ORDER
`2
`FOR CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06185-HSG
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 71 Filed 05/14/19 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`produced documents within a reasonable time after becoming aware of the
`inadvertent production by notifying the receiving party of the assertion of privilege or
`protection in writing. In case of inadvertent production, at the producing party’s
`request, the receiving party shall immediately return or destroy the inadvertently
`produced materials. Each producing party will provide a privilege log
`
`
`Dated: May 13, 2019
`
`Dated: May 13, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Michael Liu Su
`Michael Liu Su (Cal. Bar No. 300590)
`michael.liu.su@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`3300 Hillview Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone:
`(650) 849-6600
`Facsimile:
`(650) 849-6666
`
`Lionel M. Lavenue (pro hac vice)
`lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com
`Bradford C. Schulz (pro hac vice)
`bradford.schulz@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`Two Freedom Square
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190
`Telephone:
`(571) 203-2700
`Facsimile:
`(202) 408-4400
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Sarah G. Hartman
`Sarah G. Hartman (Cal. Bar No. 281751)
`shartman@brownrudnick.com
`Alfred R. Fabricant (pro hac vice)
`afabricant@brownrudnick.com
`Peter Lambrianakos (pro hac vice)
`plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, III (pro hac vice)
`vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`JOINT STIPULATION AND DISCOVERY ORDER
`3
`FOR CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06185-HSG
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 71 Filed 05/14/19 Page 5 of 5
`
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: (212) 209-4800
`Facsimile: (212) 209-4801
`
`Arjun Sivakumar (Cal. Bar No. 297787)
`asivakumar@brownrudnick.com
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`2211 Michelson Drive, Seventh Floor
`Irvine, California 92612
`Telephone: (949) 752-7100
`Facsimile: (949) 252-1514
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTESTATION
`I, Michael Liu Su, hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been
`obtained from each of the other Signatories indicated by a confirmed signature (/s/) within this e-
`filed document.
`
`
`/s/ Michael Liu Su
`Michael Liu Su
`
`
`PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED,
`
`
`Dated: May 14, 2019
`
`_______________________________________
`The Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam Jr.
`U.S. District Court Judge
`Northern District of California
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`JOINT STIPULATION AND DISCOVERY ORDER
`FOR CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06185-HSG
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`