Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01296/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01296-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1121 Trademark 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 

- 1 - 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TAKING DEPOSITIONS OF 

LAPPERT’S, INC. AND MARY PRATT AFTER DISCOVERY CUTOFF 1302447.1

HANSON BRIDGETT MARCUS VLAHOS & RUDY, LLP 

SUSAN G. O’NEILL -115133 

GARNER K. WENG - 191462 

BATYA F. SWENSON - 192396 

425 Market Street, 26th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 777-3200 

Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 

E-mail: gweng@hansonbridgett.com 

 bswenson@hansonbridgett.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

LAPPERT’S ICE CREAM, INC., a California Corporation 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND DIVISION 

LAPPERT’S ICE CREAM, INC., a 

California Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LAPPERT’S, INC., a Hawaii Corporation, 

Defendant. 

No. C06-1296 SC 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING TAKING 

DEPOSITIONS OF LAPPERT’S INC. AND 

MARY PRATT AFTER DISCOVERY 

CUTOFF 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

Action Filed: February 22, 2006 

Trial Date: April 2, 2007 

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, the discovery cut-off in this matter was February 12, 2007; 

WHEREAS, due to scheduling conflicts and logistical complications with the need to 

travel to the State of Hawaii for depositions, the parties mutually agreed that Plaintiff and 

Counterdefendant Lappert’s Ice Cream, Inc. (“Lappert’s California”) would take its depositions 

of Defendant and Counterclaimant Lappert’s, Inc. (“Lappert’s Hawaii”) on February 13 and 14, 

2007 in Kauai, Hawaii; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Lappert’s California timely delivered its first 

production of documents to Defendant and Counterclaimant Lappert’s Hawaii on Wednesday, 

Case 3:06-cv-01296-SC Document 60 Filed 02/15/07 Page 1 of 4
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 - 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TAKING DEPOSITIONS OF 

LAPPERT’S, INC. AND MARY PRATT AFTER DISCOVERY CUTOFF 1302447.1

January 31, 2007, in line with the timing of Defendant’s requests for production and a two-day

extension; 

WHEREAS, in reviewing the documents produced by Plaintiff in preparation for its 

depositions of Lappert’s California and its principal, Michael Lappert, scheduled for February 7 

and 9, respectively, counsel for Defendant discovered documents he believed indicated that there 

is a conflict of interest in the law firm of Hanson Bridgett Marcus Vlahos Rudy, LLP (“Hanson 

Bridgett”) representing Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Lappert’s California in this litigation.; 

WHEREAS, on February 9, 2007, counsel for Lappert’s Hawaii questioned Michael 

Lappert about these documents; 

WHEREAS, on the evening of February 9, 2007, after the conclusion of the deposition, 

counsel for Lappert’s Hawaii informed counsel for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Lappert’s 

California of his belief that, based on these documents and the corresponding deposition 

testimony, an alleged conflict of interest exists and that, accordingly, Lappert’s Hawaii intended 

to file a motion to disqualify Hanson Bridgett; 

WHEREAS, notwithstanding its intent to file this motion to disqualify, counsel for

Lappert’s Hawaii advised counsel for Lappert’s California on the evening of February 9, 2007 

that it would permit the previously scheduled depositions of Lappert’s Hawaii and its principal 

Mary Pratt to proceed on February 13 and 14 so long as counsel for Lappert’s California agreed 

that (i) it would not use any confidential information that it may have obtained in connection with 

its prior representation of Lappert’s Hawaii in preparing for or taking the deposition, and (2) it 

would not use the fact of Lappert’s Hawaii’s agreement to permit these depositions to proceed in 

the face of this alleged conflict as a basis for contesting or opposing Lappert’s Hawaii’s 

forthcoming motion to disqualify Hanson Bridgett; 

WHEREAS, understanding that counsel for Lappert’s Hawaii had a flight scheduled for 

the morning of Sunday, February 11, Hanson Bridgett attempted to investigate the allegations 

related to the alleged conflict during the evening of Friday, February 9 and Saturday, February 

10, but was unable to complete its investigation during that time. 

WHEREAS, not having been able to complete its investigation before Defendant’s 

Case 3:06-cv-01296-SC Document 60 Filed 02/15/07 Page 2 of 4
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 - 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TAKING DEPOSITIONS OF 

LAPPERT’S, INC. AND MARY PRATT AFTER DISCOVERY CUTOFF 1302447.1

counsel’s flight to Hawaii, Hanson Bridgett was unwilling to agree to limit what it would be 

allowed to raise in response to the motion to disqualify as a condition to the depositions;

WHEREAS, the depositions did not proceed in Kauai on February 13 and 14; 

WHEREAS, Defendant and Counterclaimant Lappert’s Hawaii is willing to permit the 

depositions that the parties had scheduled for February 13 and 14 to proceed once the alleged 

conflict of interest is resolved; 

IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties, through their attorneys 

of record, that Defendant and Counterclaimant Lappert’s Hawaii will appear for its Rule 30(b)(6) 

deposition and separately will produce Mary Pratt for her deposition, in Kauai, Hawaii—after the 

discovery cut-off, at a mutually convenient time before trial, which is currently set to begin on 

April 2, 2007. The depositions will be conducted either: (i) by new counsel for Plaintiff and 

Counterdefendant Lappert’s California; or (ii) in the event that Hanson Bridgett does not 

voluntarily withdraw and Defendant’s and Counterclaimant Lappert’s Hawaii’s motion to 

disqualify is denied, by Hanson Bridgett. 

DATED: February 13, 2007 HANSON BRIDGETT MARCUS 

VLAHOS & RUDY, LLP 

By: /s/ 

BATYA F. SWENSON 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

LAPPERT’S ICE CREAM, INC., a 

California Corporation 

DATED: February 13, 2007 HOWARD, RICE, NEMEROVSKI, 

CANADY, FALK & RABKIN, LLC 

By: /s/ 

DOUGLAS A. WINTHROP 

Attorneys for Defendant LAPPERT’S, 

INC., a Hawaii Corporation 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February ___, 2007 

HONORABLE SAMUEL CONTI 

U. S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Samuel Conti

Case 3:06-cv-01296-SC Document 60 Filed 02/15/07 Page 3 of 4
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 - 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TAKING DEPOSITIONS OF 

LAPPERT’S, INC. AND MARY PRATT AFTER DISCOVERY CUTOFF 1302447.1

SIGNATURES UNDER GENERAL ORDER NO. 45

 Pursuant to General Order No. 45 of the United States District Court, Northern District of 

California, I, Batya F. Swenson—the ECF User whose User ID and Password are used in the 

filing of this document—hereby attest that the concurrence to the filing of this document has been 

obtained from the other signatory to this document. 

 /s/ 

 BATYA F. SWENSON 

Case 3:06-cv-01296-SC Document 60 Filed 02/15/07 Page 4 of 4