Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00711/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00711-7/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Docket No. 75

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NETBULA, LLC

 Plaintiff,

 v.

BINDVIEW DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION ET AL,

Defendants. /

No. C06-00711 MJJ

ORDER CLARIFYING THE

DOCUMENT REQUEST LIMIT IN THE

OCTOBER 16, 2006 PRE TRIAL ORDER

Having read and considered Plaintiff's Motion for Clarifying the Document Request Limit 

in the October 16, 2006 Pre-Trial Order1, and Defendants’ opposition, the Court CLARIFIES the

Pre-Trial Order. 

The Court ordered document requests in this case be limited to a total of fifty requests per

side. While Plaintiff defines “you” and “your” to include Defendants Bindview Development

Corporation, Symantec Corporation, and Eric J. Pulaski, every request does not imply all three

Defendants. (See Plaintiff Netbula, LLC’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and

Things 1:27-28.) For example, Request No. 1 asks for “Installable copies of ALL BINDVIEW

SOFTWARE for every revision.” (Id. at 5:22-23.) This request requires a response only to

Bindview Development Corporation. However, Request No. 17 asks for “All documents supporting

defendants’ affirmative defenses, including but not limited to license, fraud, unclean hands, lack of

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MJJ Document 80 Filed 02/23/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

originality, invalidity of copyright registration.” (Id. at 8:1-3.) This request functions as three

requests as it requires separate responses as to each Defendant. Calculating the requests in this

fashion, the Court notes Plaintiff did not exceed fifty document requests. 

Given the recent developments in the case, namely the relation of two additional cases, the

Court will set a Status Conference to develop a further discovery plan in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22 , 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MJJ Document 80 Filed 02/23/07 Page 2 of 2