Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00711/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00711-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NETBULA, LLC,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

BINDVIEW DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION, et al. 

 Defendants.

____________________________/

No. C 06-0711 MJJ (WDB)

ORDER FOLLOWING JULY 13,

2007, TELEPHONIC HEARING

REGARDING DISPUTES ARISING

DURING THE DEPOSITION OF

NEIL SMITH, ESQ.

On July 13, 2007, the Court conducted a telephonic hearing, at the request of

the parties, to resolve disputes that arose during the deposition of Neil Smith, Esq.,

which was held the day before, on July 12, 2007. In particular, Plaintiff objected to

questions posed to Mr. Smith by Defendant's counsel about specific legal work done

on behalf of Plaintiff and about communications Mr. Smith had with the United States

Copyright Office. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court ORDERS as

follows.

1. Counsel for Defendant is permitted to ask Mr. Smith abstract questions

about whether, during the relevant time period, he or anyone in his law firm did legal

work for Plaintiff in anticipation of litigation. If Mr. Smith answers, "no," then the

subject is over. No further questions are permitted in this subject area. Alternatively,

if Mr. Smith answers, "yes," then counsel may continue to ask Mr. Smith to provide

the number of hours on particular days that were spent doing work in anticipation of

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MJJ Document 232 Filed 07/19/07 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

2

litigation. Defendant's counsel is not permitted to ask any further questions about the

type of work performed on any given day. 

2. Counsel for Defendant is permitted to ask Mr. Smith about

communications he or anyone in his law firm had with the United States Copyright

Office. Defendants are not permitted to ask Mr. Smith about what he thought about

these communications, or about what he advised his client with respect to these

communications.

3. Because a portion of the time allotted for the deposition of Mr. Smith was

used by counsel in an attempt to resolve these disputes regarding the permitted scope

of questioning, the Court GRANTS Defendant's request for an additional 1 hour of

deposition time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2007 WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to: 

Parties, MJJ, WDB, Stats

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MJJ Document 232 Filed 07/19/07 Page 2 of 2