Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00711/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00711-15/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NETBULA, LLC,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

BINDVIEW DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION, et al. 

 Defendants.

____________________________/

No. C 06-0711 MJJ (WDB)

ORDER AND REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION RE

DEPOSITIONS

ORDER

Defendants noticed depositions of a plaintiff's representative to be designated

under Rule 30(b)(6), Dongxiao Yue, and Neil Smith. See, Letter, filed June 13, 2007. 

Plaintiff objected to the taking of these depositions. See, Objections to Defendants'

Notice of Depositions, filed June 14, 2007. On June 14, 2007, plaintiff also filed a

document styled Objections to Magistrate Judge's Discovery Orders Issued on June

11, 2007. Plaintiff's Objections to this court's June 11th Orders primarily seek

clarification about the scope of waiver of the attorney client privilege found by this

court with respect to communications between plaintiff and Neil Smith.

The parties' originally directed their disputes to the presiding District Judge. 

Judge Jenkins has requested that the undersigned address the parties' disputes in the

first instance as they fall within the scope of the District Court's initial discovery

referral. The undersigned will also clarify the June 11th ruling regarding the scope of

waiver. If, following such clarification, plaintiff continues to object to this court's

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MJJ Document 209 Filed 06/28/07 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

ruling on the issue of waiver plaintiff may present its Objections directly to Judge

Jenkins.

On Friday, June 22, 2007, the court conducted a telephonic hearing to discuss

these discovery disputes. For the reasons stated on the record and below, we ORDER

as follows.

1. The court clarified its ruling that plaintiff waives the protections of the

attorney client privilege with respect to communications between it and Neil Smith

only if plaintiff voluntarily elects to pursue its claim that Mr. Smith's attorney's fees

constitute a component of damages under plaintiff's claim for fraud. Plaintiff,

through its counsel, represented on the record at the June 22nd hearing that it now has

elected not to claim as fraud damages monies paid to Mr. Smith. Accordingly, it is

this court's ruling that plaintiff has not waived the attorney client privilege with

respect to related communications between it and Mr. Smith.

As explained on the record, defendants MAY depose Mr. Smith with respect to

communications between Mr. Smith and representatives of defendants relating to

plaintiff's fraud claim.

2. Mr. Yue must appear for deposition both in his individual capacity and

as plaintiff's representative in response to defendant's Rule 30(B)(6) notice. Unless

plaintiff presents a compelling reason for Mr. Yue's unavailability, Mr. Yue's

deposition will take place beginning June 27, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. and will continue to

June 28th and the afternoon of June 29th, if necessary. The deposition will take place

in defense counsel's offices in San Francisco, California.

3. Mr. Neil Smith must appear for deposition. Mr. Smith will be subject to

deposition for no more than four hours. He will be deposed on a date convenient to

Mr. Smith. The parties have scheduled Mr. Smith's deposition for July 12, 2007. 

See, June 26, 2007, letter from Mr. Wakefield to the undersigned, attached hereto

("Wakefield Letter").

4. Plaintiff may take the deposition of Mr. Pulaski. Mr. Pulaski is currently

traveling out of the country. Defendants' counsel was to determine Mr. Pulaski's

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MJJ Document 209 Filed 06/28/07 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

schedule and to send a writing to plaintiff's counsel and this court advising of Mr.

Pulaski's soonest availability. According to defendants' counsel, plaintiff will depose

Mr. Pulaski on July 2, 2007. See, Wakefield Letter.

5. For the reasons stated on the record, plaintiff may not take the deposition

of Michael Schallop.

6. Plaintiff also seeks to take the depositions of Mr. Margolis and Mr.

Toedt, former employees of Bindview. Plaintiff may depose Messrs. Margolis and

Toedt for no more than one day each. The depositions will take place in Houston,

Texas, where the deponents reside. If the deponents' schedules permit plaintiff must

take these depositions by July 16, 2007.

Counsel for defendant was to contact Messrs. Margolis and Toedt to inquire

about their availability. However, plaintiff must formally subpoena both non-parties

pursuant to F.R.C.P., Rule 45. Defendants counsel represents that plaintiff is

scheduled to take Mr. Toedt's position on July 3, 2007, and to take Mr. Margolis'

deposition on July 11, 2007. See, Wakefield Letter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MJJ Document 209 Filed 06/28/07 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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Given the availability and timing of Messrs. Pulaski, Margolis and Toedt, the

parties are unable to comply with the Court's current pretrial schedule. Accordingly,

the parties have asked this court to RECOMMEND that Judge Jenkins extend some

of the parties' pretrial deadlines. See, Wakefield Letter. The parties do not wish to

continue the currently established trial date.

In order to permit the parties to take important depositions, and because the

parties represent that their requested deadline extension will not compromise the trial

date, we RECOMMEND as follows.

a. that the deadline for expert reports be extended eleven (11) days to

July 20, 2007, 

b. that the "expert" discovery cut-off be extended eleven (11) days to

August 10, 2007, and

c. that the deadline for hearing dispositve motions be extended ten

(10) days to August 31, 2007.

IT IS SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.

Dated: June 28, 2007 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to: 

Parties, MJJ, WDB, Stats

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MJJ Document 209 Filed 06/28/07 Page 4 of 4