Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01376/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01376-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUCCESSFACTORS, INC., a Delaware

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOFTSCAPE, INC., a Delaware

corporation; and DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 08-1376 CW

ORDER RE: EVIDENCE

PRESERVATION ORDER,

PROTECTIVE ORDER AND

EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 

On April 1, 2007, the Court ordered the parties to meet and

confer regarding a plan for the preservation of electronic evidence

and to conduct their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)

conference to establish a mutually agreeable discovery plan. The

parties have done so and have submitted supplemental briefs and

proposed evidence preservation and protective orders. 

I. Evidence Preservation

The parties have each submitted a proposed evidence

preservation order. The Court has adopted parts of each party's

proposed order in the concurrently filed order. Plaintiff seeks to

include several of Defendant's employees' home computers in the

scope of the preservation order but has not provided the Court with

any authority demonstrating that it may do so. Similarly,

Plaintiff provides no authority for its request that the Court

Case 4:08-cv-01376-CW Document 87 Filed 04/23/08 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

include individuals who are not Defendant's employees within the

scope of the preservation order. Therefore, the Court has

eliminated references to home computers and adopted Defendant's

proposed language requesting that "any non-party who may possess

materials reasonably anticipated being subject to discovery take

reasonable measures to preserve such material." 

Plaintiff also argues that Defendant's counsel's assurance

that she has directed her client to preserve evidence is not

sufficient and seeks a provision requiring counsel to certify that

their clients have taken certain steps. However, Plaintiff

provides no authority for requiring outside counsel to make any

such certification. The only case Plaintiff cites involves the

remedy provided by a Delaware court after it found that Defendant

had not complied with its discovery obligations. Therefore, the

Court adopts Defendant's proposed language requiring counsel to

certify that they have advised their clients of the various

evidence preservation requirements. In addition, the Court orders

Defendant's CEO Dave Watkins to submit a declaration under penalty

of perjury that Defendant has taken the steps necessary to ensure

that evidence is preserved.

Defendant has objected to various technical requests regarding

electronic evidence included in Plaintiff's proposed order but has

not provided alternative proposed terms. Plaintiff filed an

amended version of its proposed order taking into account the

concerns raised by Defendant's consultant. The Court has adopted

some of Plaintiff's proposed language in paragraph ten of the

concurrently filed evidence preservation order. To the extent that

Case 4:08-cv-01376-CW Document 87 Filed 04/23/08 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

Defendant's concerns are not adequately addressed by Plaintiff's

efforts and Defendant can in good faith argue that Plaintiff's

terms cannot be complied with or are unduly burdensome, Defendant

may seek relief from specific terms, first by stipulation and, if

necessary, by motion. 

II. Protective Order

The Court has adopted Defendant's proposed protective order. 

It is not clear why any of Plaintiff's current or former employees

should be permitted to view documents designated as attorneys' eyes

only. To the extent that Plaintiff can in good faith argue that it

needs its employees rather than outside experts to view specific

attorneys' eyes only documents, it may seek relief from the

protective order, first by stipulation and, if necessary, by

motion.

III. Expedited Discovery

Plaintiff argues that it needs expedited document production

because both parties seek shortened deadlines for depositions. 

Plaintiff bases this argument on its concern that Defendant will

object to Plaintiff's document requests and prevent Plaintiff from

adequately preparing for the depositions. Neither party explains

why they seek to expedite depositions. With the entry of the

evidence preservation order, any need for expedited discovery has

dissipated. Plaintiff's request for expedited discovery is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/23/08 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-01376-CW Document 87 Filed 04/23/08 Page 3 of 3