Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06185/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06185-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent 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

JOINT STIPULATION AND DISCOVERY ORDER

FOR CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06185-HSG

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 

ZTE (USA) INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC, 

Defendants. 

 CASE NO. 4:18-cv-06185-HSG 

(Former Case No. 2:17-cv-00517-JRG) 

(E.D. Tex.) 

JOINT STIPULATION AND 

DISCOVERY ORDER 

 

 

 

Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 71 Filed 05/14/19 Page 1 of 5
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

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: 

1. Protective Orders. The Court will enter the parties’ Agreed Protective Order. 

2. 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). 

Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 71 Filed 05/14/19 Page 2 of 5
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 JOINT STIPULATION AND DISCOVERY ORDER

FOR CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06185-HSG

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. 

3. 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 

Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 71 Filed 05/14/19 Page 3 of 5
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

3 JOINT STIPULATION AND DISCOVERY ORDER

FOR CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06185-HSG

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 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. 

Dated: May 13, 2019 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 

Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 71 Filed 05/14/19 Page 4 of 5
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

4 JOINT STIPULATION AND DISCOVERY ORDER

FOR CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06185-HSG

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 efiled 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

Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 71 Filed 05/14/19 Page 5 of 5