Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-02889/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-02889-11/pdf.json

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

---

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

STIPULATION REGARDING EXPERT 

DISCOVERY AND ORDER 

20336-1273/LEGAL17927821.1

 5:09-CV-02889-JW 

RAOUL D. KENNEDY (CA Bar No. 40892) 

JOAN R. SHREFFLER (CA Bar No. 245629) 

JAMES P. SCHAEFER (CA Bar No. 250417) 

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 

Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3800 

San Francisco, California 94111-4144 

Telephone: (415) 984-6400 

Facsimile: (415) 984-2698 

Email: rkennedy@skadden.com; jshreffler@skadden.com; 

jschaefer@skadden.com

JOSEPH E. MAIS (CA Bar No. 103756) 

ANTHONY L. MARKS (AZ Bar No. 012258) 

TIMOTHY J. FRANKS (CA Bar No. 197645)

DAN L. BAGATELL (CA Bar No. 218879) 

PERKINS COIE BROWN & BAIN P.A. 

2901 North Central Avenue 

Post Office Box 400 

Phoenix, Arizona 85001-0400 

Telephone: (602) 351-8000 

Facsimile: (602) 648-7000 

Email: jmais@perkinscoie.com; amarks@perkinscoie.com; 

tfranks@perkinscoie.com; dbagatell@perkinscoie.com 

PHILIP A. LEIDER (CA Bar No. 229751) 

PERKINS COIE LLP 

Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400 

San Francisco, California 94111-4131 

Telephone: (415) 344-7000 

Facsimile: (415) 344-7050 

Email: pleider@perkinscoie.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

INTEL CORPORATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

IN RE INTEL LAPTOP BATTERY 

LITIGATION

CASE NO. 5:09-cv-02889-JW (PVT) 

STIPULATION REGARDING EXPERT 

DISCOVERY AND ORDER 

Judge: Honorable James Ware 

Complaint Filed: June 26, 2009 

Trial Date: None 

Discovery Cutoff: February 28, 2011 

Case 5:09-cv-02889-JW Document 72 Filed 04/05/10 Page 1 of 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

STIPULATION REGARDING EXPERT 

DISCOVERY AND ORDER 

20336-1273/LEGAL17927821.1

-2- 5:09-cv-02889-JW 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between plaintiff Barry Wachsler 

and defendants Intel Corporation and Business Applications Performance Corporation 

(collectively “the parties”), through their respective counsel of record, that it is in the interest of 

the parties and the Court to avoid consuming unnecessary time and resources on potential 

discovery disputes relating to experts. In recognition of that fact, the parties have agreed to 

certain limitations on the scope of expert discovery. These limitations are as follows: 

1. With respect to testifying-expert discovery, neither the expert witness nor the party 

retaining him or her need produce, or answer deposition questions or interrogatories about, the 

following:

(a) any communications between the expert and counsel for the party retaining 

him or her (including notes and memoranda memorializing the same) unless the expert witness 

relied upon those communications in forming opinions in this matter; and 

(b) any draft reports prepared by, for, or at the direction of an expert witness. 

2. Upon proper service on opposing counsel of a notice of deposition of a party’s 

expert, the expert shall produce no later than seven business days prior to his/her deposition (a) 

copies of any non-publicly available materials that the expert relied on in forming opinions in this 

matter and (b) a list identifying any publicly available materials that the expert relied on in 

forming opinions in this matter but that are not identified in his/her report. The requested 

documents will be produced without the need for service upon the expert of a document 

subpoena.

3. For purposes of this Stipulation, the terms “expert”, “testifying-expert”, and 

“expert witness” do not include present and/or former employees. 

4. Neither the terms of this Stipulation nor the parties’ agreement to them implies that 

any of the information restricted from discovery in this Stipulation would otherwise be 

discoverable.

5. The Court retains jurisdiction to make such amendments, modifications, or 

additions to this Stipulation and the proposed order as it may from time to time deem appropriate 

or may consider upon the motion of any party. 

Case 5:09-cv-02889-JW Document 72 Filed 04/05/10 Page 2 of 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

STIPULATION REGARDING EXPERT 

DISCOVERY AND ORDER 

20336-1273/LEGAL17927821.1

-3- 5:09-cv-02889-JW 

6. The parties agree to comply with this Stipulation pending the Court’s approval and 

entry of the proposed order. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

DATED: March 29, 2010 GIRARD GIBBS LLP 

By: /s/ Geoffrey A. Munroe 

 Geoffrey A. Munroe 

 Interim Class Counsel for Plaintiffs 

DATED: March 29, 2010 PERKINS COIE LLP 

By: /s/ Philip A. Leider 

 Philip A. Leider 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 INTEL CORPORATION 

DATED: March 29, 2010 NARANCIC & KATZMAN, PC 

By: /s/ Perry J. Narancic 

 Perry J. Narancic 

Attorneys for Defendant 

BUSINESS APPLICATIONS 

PERFORMANCE CORPORATION 

 ORDER

 DATED: _March 30____, 2010 _________________________________________ 

 The Honorable Patricia Trumbull 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 5:09-cv-02889-JW Document 72 Filed 04/05/10 Page 3 of 3