Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07169/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07169-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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 Plaintiff did not include this document in its reply and Defendant has not sought

leave to supplement the record with it. 

*E-filed 11/2/07*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DIGITAL NETWORKS NORTH AMERICA,

INC. a Delaware Corporation, 

Plaintiff / Counter-defendant,

v.

NUMARK INDUSTRIES, LLC, a Rhode Island

limited liability company, 

Defendant / Counter-claimant. /

Case No. C06-07169 HRL

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING AND

REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTATION OF

RECORD

Re: Docket Nos. 23, 25

Plaintiff, Digital Networks North America, Inc. ("DNNA"), and Defendant, Numark

Industries ("Numark"), developed a digital music player under a joint development agreement. 

When the deal soured, both parties sought damages for alleged breach of the agreement. 

DNNA now moves to compel production of documents and for sanctions. 

Unfortunately, even after the conclusion of briefing on this matter, the court is unclear as to

what remains at issue. 

Numark indicates that it produced "responsive documents" or "some responsive

documents" to certain requests. However, it is not clear whether all responsive documents have

been produced, or if Numark has certified that this is the case. Furthermore, Plaintiff's reply

brief notes that, "after this reply was written, Numark served what purported to be a written

response1

 to DNNA's First Set of Requests for the Production of Documents." However,

Plaintiff does not address if (or how) that response moots any of the motion. 

Case 5:06-cv-07169-RMW Document 62 Filed 11/02/07 Page 1 of 3
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 order granting defense counsel's request to appear telephonically is accordingly

amended to permit such an appearance at the November 13 hearing. 

2

Because such information is critical to the determination of the instant motion, each

party is ordered to file - by Tuesday, November 6, 2007 - a supplemental brief or declaration

clarifying what aspects of the motion remain at issue and what has been produced at this time.

The document referred to in the reply brief as the "purported" response to DNNA's request for

production of documents might answer some of these questions. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall

include that document with its supplemental brief.

In consideration of this delay, the hearing on the motion to compel (as well as the

corresponding motion for sanctions) currently set for November 6, 2007 is continued to

November 13, 2007 at 10:00 a.m.2

 The hearing shall take place in Courtroom 2, Fifth Floor of

the United States District Court in San Jose. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/2/07 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-07169-RMW Document 62 Filed 11/02/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE SENT TO:

Dwight Craig Donovan Dwight@mbvlaw.com 

H. Ann Liroff ann.liroff@berliner.com, rebecca.revelez@berliner.com 

Byron L McMasters bmcmasters@duffysweeney.com, cscott@duffysweeney.com,

ehanson@duffysweeney.com, lspink@duffysweeney.com 

Jonathan Steven O'Donnell jon@mbvlaw.com, maxine@mbvlaw.com 

Steven D. Olson steveno@tonkon.com, judyc@tonkon.com 

Craig M. Scott cscott@duffysweeney.com, ehanson@duffysweeney.com 

Frank James Weiss frank@tonkon.com, judya@tonkon.com 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel.

Dated: 11/2/07

 /s/ KRO 

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:06-cv-07169-RMW Document 62 Filed 11/02/07 Page 3 of 3