Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02266/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02266-86/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:15 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ADVANCED MICROTHERM, INC., et al.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NORMAN WRIGHT MECHANICAL

EQUIP. CORP., et al.,

Defendant.

__________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 04-2266 JW (PVT)

FURTHER INTERIM ORDER RE 

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL

OBEDIENCE WITH PRIOR COURT ORDER

REQUIRING F.W. SPENCER & SON, INC. TO

PRODUCE SPECIFIED ELECTRONIC

ACCOUNTING DOCUMENTS AND E-MAILS

IN REASONABLE USABLE FORM 

On April 20, 2010, pursuant to this court’s prior order, Plaintiffs and Defendant F.W.

Spencer & Son, Inc. (“F.W. Spencer”) submitted supplemental briefs. Based on the supplemental

briefs and the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than 11:00 a.m. on Monday, April 26, 2010,

Defendant F.W. Spencer shall submit a declaration explaining why responsive emails prior to 2008

“were available only to the extent they were printed out and included in the project files.” (See

Defendant F.W. Spencer & Son, Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion re Electronic Discovery,

9:15-17.) The declaration shall also expressly state: 1) whether or not F.W. Spencer ever had any

emails generated during the period 1999 through 2007 that are responsive to document request nos.

7, 8, 10 and/or 11 in the Plaintiffs’ Notice of Deposition [FRCP Rule 30] and Request to Produce

Case 5:04-cv-02266-JW Document 1469 Filed 04/21/10 Page 1 of 2
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 See Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Russell F. Brasso in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for 1

Order Requiring William Spencer and F.W. Spencer to Appear for Deposition on a Date Certain and to

Produce the Documents Requested at Those Depositions; and for Sanctions (Docket No. 980).

ORDER, page 2

Documents at Deposition; and 2) if it no longer has any such emails that it previously did have, 1

what happened to those emails. 

In its opposition brief, Defendant F.W. Spencer takes the position that it does not have

responsive emails for the 1999 through 2007 time period other than any hard copies that were put

into project files. However, the only declarations it cites in support of this claim are declarations of

counsel, rather than individuals with personal knowledge of what documents F.W. Spencer

previously had and has now. And nowhere in the briefs or declarations has F.W. Spencer explained

why it has no other responsive emails from that time period.

Dated: 4/21/10

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-02266-JW Document 1469 Filed 04/21/10 Page 2 of 2