Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02361/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02361-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEPOSITION OF BAKER BOTTS, LLP 

CASE NO. C 06 2361 WHA (JCS) 

394102.01

KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 

JEFFREY R. CHANIN - #103649 

DARALYN J. DURIE - #169825 

ASHOK RAMANI - #200020 

710 Sansome Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-1704 

Telephone: (415) 391-5400 

Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 

Email: jrc@kvn.com 

djd@kvn.com

axr@kvn.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-defendant, 

NETFLIX, INC. 

VINSON & ELKINS LLP 

MICHAEL L. RAIFF 

3700 Trammell Crow Center 

2001 Ross Avenue 

Dallas, TX 75201-2974 

Telephone: (214) 220-7700 

Facsimile: (214) 220-7716 

mraiff@velaw.com 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim-plaintiff 

BLOCKBUSTER, INC and Non-Party,

BAKER BOTTS, LLP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NETFLIX, INC., a Delaware corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

BLOCKBUSTER, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, DOES 1-50, 

Defendant.

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

Case No. C 06 2361 WHA (JCS) 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING DEPOSITION OF 

BAKER BOTTS, LLP 

Complaint filed: April 4, 2006 

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 193 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 1 of 3 Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 195 Filed 04/26/07 Page 1 of 3
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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEPOSITION OF BAKER BOTTS, LLP 

CASE NO. C 06 2361 WHA (JCS) 

394102.01

WHEREAS, on or around April 5, 2007 Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Netflix, 

Inc. (“Netflix”) served a subpoena demanding testimony and documents upon non-party Baker 

Botts, LLP, with the deposition to take place in Dallas on April 24, 2007; 

WHEREAS, the documents and testimony requested of Baker Botts, LLP touch upon 

issues that relate to Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Blockbuster, Inc. (“Blockbuster”)’s 

decision to rely upon the advice of counsel in this case; 

WHEREAS, the parties have reached an agreed-upon briefing schedule on issues relating 

to Blockbuster’s reliance on the advice of counsel in which opening briefs are due to be filed on 

May 4, opposition briefs are to be filed on May 18, and reply briefs are to be filed on May 25, 

with a hearing set before the Honorable Joseph C. Spero on June 8; 

WHEREAS, counsel for Baker Botts has indicated that the witness who is most 

knowledgeable about the matters on which Netflix seeks testimony is unavailable the week of 

April 23, but is willing and able to sit for a deposition on Wednesday, May 2 in Dallas, which 

date comes after the cutoff set for fact discovery in this case but prior to the date upon which 

briefs relating to the issue of Blockbuster’s decision to rely on the advice of counsel are to be 

filed; 

NOW, THEREFORE, Netflix, Blockbuster, and Baker Botts, LLP respectfully request 

that the deposition of Baker Botts, LLP be permitted to be taken on Wednesday, May 2. 

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 193 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 2 of 3 Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 195 Filed 04/26/07 Page 2 of 3
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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEPOSITION OF BAKER BOTTS, LLP 

CASE NO. C 06 2361 WHA (JCS) 

394102.01

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

After reviewing the foregoing stipulation, and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the 

deposition of Baker Botts, LLP in this matter may be taken on May 2, 2007. 

Dated: April 25, 2007 Respectfully submitted, 

KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP

By: /s/ Eugene M. Paige ________________

Eugene M. Paige 

Attorneys For Plaintiff and Counterclaim 

Defendant NETFLIX, INC.

Dated: April 25, 2007 Respectfully submitted, 

VINSON & ELKINS LLP

By: /s/ Michael L. Raiff_________________

Michael L. Raiff 

Attorneys For Defendant and Counterclaim 

Plaintiff BLOCKBUSTER INC. and 

Non-party BAKER BOTTS, LLP

 I hereby attest, pursuant to section X of General Order 45, that concurrence in the filing 

of this document has been obtained from Michael L. Raiff, Esq., Attorney for Defendant and 

Counterclaim Plaintiff Blockbuster Inc. and Non-party Baker Botts, LLP. 

Dated: April 25, 2007 By: /s/ Eugene M. Paige 

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated:

By: __________________________________ 

THE HON. WILLIAM H. ALSUP 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 193 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 3 of 3

April 26, 2007.

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Just this once.

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 195 Filed 04/26/07 Page 3 of 3