Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03773/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03773-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIVEOPS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

TELEO, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-05-3773 MJJ (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT

WENDELL BROWN’S MOTION TO

COMPEL DISCLOSURE OF TRADE

SECRETS; AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS

(Docket Nos. 25, 44)

Defendant Brown’s motion to compel disclosure of trade secrets and Plaintiff LiveOps’

motion for sanctions came on for hearing on January 18, 2006. Having considered the papers filed

in support of and in opposition to said motions and the argument of counsel, and good cause

appearing therefor, for the reasons stated on the record, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND

DENIES IN PART the motion to compel and DENIES the motion for sanctions.

The Court does not have jurisdiction over discovery matters pending before the state court

and therefore will not order Plaintiff to refrain from discovery as Defendant Brown requests. If

Defendant Brown thinks the state court discovery circumvents Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2019, he should

petition the state court in which discovery has been propounded. In this court, now that the motion

to dismiss has been denied by Judge Jenkins, and mediation is pending, the Court believes that

disclosure under § 2019 should proceed in order to facilitate the mediation and commencement of

discovery herein. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall serve its disclosure under protective order by

February 6, 2006.

Case 3:05-cv-03773-MJJ Document 61 Filed 01/20/06 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

The Court denies the motion for sanctions because the substance of the dispute had been

discussed by the parties in the context of both the state and federal litigation. In the Court’s view,

both parties failed to exercise diligence in trying to resolve this dispute.

It is hereby furthered ordered that the parties shall meet and confer and agree upon a

protective order and file such order by January 25, 2006. The parties shall complete their initial

disclosures by January 25, 2006. The parties shall meet and confer and file a joint discovery plan by

February 10, 2006. 

In the future, prior to filing any discovery motion, the parties shall meet and confer in person

and shall file with any such motion a joint letter describing the meet and confer efforts and stating

what disputes were resolved and what disputes remain unresolved. The Court expects the parties to

do a better job in meeting and conferring and making a good faith effort to resolve disputes, and not

engage in needless posturing. The parties are forewarned that the Court may impose a requirement

that the parties file a joint letter describing each dispute in detail and the parties’ respective positions

prior to the filing of any discovery motion and may require the parties to seek leave of Court in order

to file any such motion. The Court also reserves the option of requiring that lead trial counsel attend

each meet and confer and any court hearing on discovery should the parties not engage in

meaningful good faith negotiations.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 25 and 44.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2006 ________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03773-MJJ Document 61 Filed 01/20/06 Page 2 of 2