Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00257/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00257-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1 

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Re Coordination Of Discovery; Case No. 3:05-CV-00257-MHP 

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

Gibson, Dunn & 

Crutcher LLP 

POPE MCGLAMRY KILPATRICK 

MORRISON & NORWOOD LLP 

C. Neal Pope (pro hac vice) 

Michael McGlamry (pro hac vice) 

Wade H. Tomlinson III (pro hac vice) 

Alan G. Snipes (pro hac vice) 

1111 Bay Avenue, Suite 450 

Post Office Box 2128 (31902-2128) 

Columbus, Georgia 31901 

MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD 

 & SCHULMAN LLP 

MELVYN I. WEISS (pro hac vice) 

BRAD N. FRIEDMAN (pro hac vice) 

One Pennsylvania Plaza 

New York, NY 10119 

Telephone: (212) 594-5300 

Facsimile: (212) 868-1229 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

FREDERICK BROWN, SBN 65316

JOEL S. SANDERS, SBN 107234

REBECCA JUSTICE LAZARUS, SBN 227330

One Montgomery Street, Suite 3100 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 393-8200 

Facsimile: (415) 986-5309 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHRISTY SLACK, Individually and On Behalf 

Of All Persons Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

FAIR ISAAC CORPORATION and MYFICO 

CONSUMER SERVICES, INC., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:05-CV-00257-MHP 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE COORDINATION OF 

DISCOVERY 

Case 3:05-cv-00257-MHP Document 72 Filed 01/04/06 Page 1 of 4
 2 

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Re Coordination Of Discovery; Case No. 3:05-CV-00257-MHP 

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

Gibson, Dunn & 

Crutcher LLP 

WHEREAS there is substantial overlap in the discovery relevant to this case and the Hillis 

Action pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and

WHEREAS the parties desire to avoid duplication and promote efficiency, 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that the parties shall use reasonable efforts to 

work together to coordinate discovery between the Hillis Action and this case to prevent duplication 

of effort and to promote the efficient resolution of this case. Specifically, the following procedures 

for discovery shall be adopted. 

A. Definitions 

1. The Hillis Action: means Hillis v. Equifax, et al. (Case No. 1:04-CV-3400-BBM) in 

the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. 

2. The Slack Action: means Slack v. Fair Isaac Corporation, et al. (Case No. 3:05-CV00257-MHP) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 

3. The District Court: means the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California.

B. Discovery 

4. Discovery in the Hillis Action between Fair Isaac Corporation and the plaintiff in that 

action may be used as if produced or taken in the Slack Action, including, but not limited to, 

observance of any protective order entered in the Slack Action by the District Court. Such discovery 

will include documents produced by Fair Isaac Corporation in the Hillis Action, written responses 

and objections to discovery requests submitted by Fair Isaac Corporation in the Hillis Action and 

depositions taken of Fair Isaac employees, former employees or experts in the Hillis Action, 

including all exhibits that consist of documents produced by Fair Isaac Corporation. 

5. The parties agree that all discovery produced by Equifax Consumer Services, Inc. 

(“Equifax”), including written responses to discovery requests, depositions taken of Equifax 

witnesses, and any exhibits to depositions that include documents produced by Equifax in the Hillis 

Action may be used as if produced or taken in the Slack Action. The parties further agree that the use 

of Equifax discovery may be used for the purposes of establishing a relationship between Fair Isaac 

and Equifax. The use of any and all Equifax discovery materials will be governed by this Stipulation 

Case 3:05-cv-00257-MHP Document 72 Filed 01/04/06 Page 2 of 4
 3 

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Re Coordination Of Discovery; Case No. 3:05-CV-00257-MHP 

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

Gibson, Dunn & 

Crutcher LLP 

and the Protective Order entered in the Slack Action. However, because some or all of the discovery 

produced by Equifax may be designated as Confidential or Restricted Confidential under the terms of 

the Protective Order in place in the Hillis Action, Plaintiff agrees that no such discovery will be used 

in the Slack Action unless and until Plaintiff obtains a stipulation from counsel for Equifax 

authorizing such use and/or the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Judge Beverly 

Martin) authorizes that use by order of the court. 

6. Until the court in the Hillis Action rules on the pending motion for class certification, 

discovery in the Slack Action is limited to the relationship between Fair Isaac Corporation, myFICO 

Consumer Services, Inc. and Suze Orman Media, Inc.,on the one hand, and Transunion (including 

TrueLink) and Experian (including Freecreditreport.com and ConsumerInfo.com), on the other hand. 

Following the ruling on class certification in the Hillis Action, counsel shall meet and confer for the 

purpose of agreeing on the scope of remaining discovery necessary in the Slack Action. 

C. Deposition Procedure 

7. Defendants’ witnesses already deposed in the Hillis Action as fact witnesses or as 

30(b)(6) witnesses shall not be deposed again in the Slack Action except as to matters not relevant to 

the Hillis Action, absent agreement of the parties or by motion for good cause shown. 

D. Written Discovery Guidelines 

8. Plaintiff agrees to use her best efforts to avoid duplicate interrogatories, requests for 

admission, and requests for documents already propounded in the Hillis Action. The parties agree 

that duplication is a proper objection to written discovery requests. 

E. Use of Discovery Obtained in the Hillis Action 

9. By agreeing to this stipulation, no party waives any objection to the use (in any form) 

of any discovery obtained in the Hillis Action. Nothing contained in this Stipulation and Order shall 

constitute or be deemed to constitute a waiver of any objection of any defendant or plaintiff to the 

admissibility at trial of any documents, deposition testimony or exhibits, or written discovery 

responses provided or obtained in accordance with the Order, whether on grounds of relevance, 

materiality or any other basis, and all such objections are specifically preserved. The fact that 

Case 3:05-cv-00257-MHP Document 72 Filed 01/04/06 Page 3 of 4
 4 

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Re Coordination Of Discovery; Case No. 3:05-CV-00257-MHP 

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

Gibson, Dunn & 

Crutcher LLP 

discovery in the Hillis Action is treated as if it had been taken in the Slack Action shall have no 

bearing on its use, admissibility, relevance or credibility in any subsequent proceedings. 

STIPULATED AND AGREED TO BY: 

DATED: __January 3, 2006_

By: ___/s:/_Michael McGlamry__________

Michael McGlamry 

POPE MCGLAMRY KILPATRICK 

MORRISON & NORWOOD LLP 

1111 Bay Avenue, Suite 450 

Post Office Box 2128 (31902-2128) 

Columbus, Georgia 31901 

By: ____/s:/ Frederick Brown________________

 Frederick Brown 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

One Montgomery Street, Suite 3100 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Attorneys for Defendants 

By: ___/s:/ Brad N. Friedman____________

Brad N. Friedman 

MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD 

& SCHULMAN LLP 

One Pennsylvania Plaza 

New York, NY 10119 

Telephone: (212) 594-5300 

Facsimile: (212) 868-1229 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ____________ __________________________________

Marilyn Hall Patel 

United States District Judge 

Northern District of California 

40219552_3.DOC

January 4, 2006

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:05-cv-00257-MHP Document 72 Filed 01/04/06 Page 4 of 4