Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04639/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04639-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anyaspect KFT.
Defendant
Tableau Software, Inc.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

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-NY/2197017.2 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND 

PROPOSED ORDER – C06-04639 (CRB) 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

Andrew J. Gray IV (202137) 

2 Palo Alto Square, Suite 700 

3000 El Camino Real 

Palo Alto, CA 94306 

Tel: 650.843.4000 

Fax: 650.843.4001 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Tableau Software, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

TABLEAU SOFTWARE, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ANYASPECT KFT., 

Defendant. 

Case No. C 06-04639 CRB 

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

 Plaintiff in the captioned action respectfully submits this Case Management Statement and 

Proposed Order and requests the Court to adopt it as its Case Management Order in this case. As 

the defendant has not yet entered an appearance in this case, this Case Management Statement 

and Proposed Order has not been jointly submitted. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE 

1. Jurisdiction and Service: 

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 

1338 (a), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq, and the 

Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. Jurisdiction over the state law claims is proper pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the parties are of diverse citizenship and the value of the matter in 

controversy exceeds seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000), exclusive of interest and costs, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b), and pursuant to the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction provided 

by 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

Plaintiff has provided Defendant with copies of all documents and orders filed in 

connection with this case via e-mail, express courier, and/or personal delivery. Defendant, 

however, a foreign corporation located in Budapest, Hungary, has not yet been officially served 

Case 3:06-cv-04639-CRB Document 38 Filed 07/13/07 Page 1 of 5
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

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-NY/2197017.2 2 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND 

PROPOSED ORDER – C06-04639 (CRB) 

with the Summons and Complaint. 

In this regard, Plaintiff is in the process of serving the Summons and Complaint upon the 

defendant through Letters Rogatory. Plaintiff provided the U.S. Department of State with the 

materials needed for service via Letters Rogatory more than six months ago. Plaintiff 

understands that the U.S. Department of State has forwarded these materials to the government of 

Hungary through diplomatic channels. Service, however, has not yet been completed. Plaintiff 

proposes a 120-day extension for service, until November 28, 2007. 

Plaintiff is unaware of any additional parties that may need to be joined. 

2. Facts: 

This is an action for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 

Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, and Copyright Infringement arising out of Defendant’s theft 

and subsequent efforts to commercialize Plaintiff’s software. 

As the defendant has not made an appearance or filed an Answer, no facts are presently in 

dispute. 

3. Legal Issues:

As the defendant has not made an appearance, no legal issues are presently in dispute. 

4. Motions: 

The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order on August 1, 2007 and thereafter entered 

a Preliminary Injunction on August 15, 2007. The Court has granted two Orders for Extension of 

Time to Serve Foreign Defendant, one on November 3, 2006, and one on March 8, 2007. A 

Proposed Order for Extension of Time to Serve Foreign Defendant is incorporated herein. 

5. Amendment of Pleadings: 

The defendant has not made an appearance or filed an Answer; and no amendments to the 

pleadings have been made. 

6. Evidence Preservation: 

As the defendant has not made an appearance, there have been no discussions regarding 

preservation of evidence. 

7. Disclosures:

 As the defendant has not made an appearance, no disclosures have been made. 

8. Discovery:

As defendant has not made an appearance, no discovery has been taken. 

Case 3:06-cv-04639-CRB Document 38 Filed 07/13/07 Page 2 of 5
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

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-NY/2197017.2 3 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND 

PROPOSED ORDER – C06-04639 (CRB) 

9. Class Actions:

This action is not a class action. 

10. Related Cases:

 Plaintiff is unaware of any related cases. 

11. Relief:

Plaintiff shall seek statutory and other damages, including attorney fees, available under 

the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Copyright Act, and applicable state law. Plaintiff has not 

yet calculated the amount of these damages. 

12. Settlement and ADR:

Until and unless defendant makes an appearance, settlement discussions and formatting a 

specific ADR plan are not appropriate. 

13. Consent to Magistrate Judge For All Purposes:

Defendant has not made an appearance, and Plaintiff does not consent to proceeding 

before a Magistrate Judge. 

14. Other References:

Until and unless defendant makes an appearance, suitability for reference to binding 

arbitration or a special master, this case is not appropriate for reference to the Judicial Panel on 

multidistrict Litigation. 

15. Narrowing of Issues:

Until and unless defendant makes an appearance, it is not appropriate to narrow the issues. 

16. Expedited Schedule:

Until and unless the defendant makes an appearance, we cannot determine the feasibility 

of an expedited schedule. Nevertheless, in the absence of an appearance by the defendant, 

Plaintiff will be entitled to a default judgment. 

17. Scheduling:

Until and unless the defendant makes an appearance, it is not appropriate to plan a 

schedule. In the absence of an appearance by the defendant, Plaintiff will be entitled to a default 

judgment. 

Case 3:06-cv-04639-CRB Document 38 Filed 07/13/07 Page 3 of 5
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

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-NY/2197017.2 4 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND 

PROPOSED ORDER – C06-04639 (CRB) 

18. Trial:

Plaintiff has demanded a jury trial. Until and unless the defendant makes an appearance, 

Plaintiff cannot estimate the expected length of trial. Nevertheless, in the absence of an 

appearance by the defendant, Plaintiff will be entitled to a default judgment. 

19. Disclosure of Non-Party Interested Entities or Persons:

Plaintiff filed its “Certification of Interested Entities or Persons” required by Civil Local 

Rule 3-16 together with its Complaint. The entities identified in this Certification are: 

New Enterprise Associates, investor 

Christian Chabot, investor 

Chris Stolte, investor 

Pat Hanrahan, investor 

Stanford University, investor 

P&E Ventures VIII, investor 

Cooley Godward, LLP, investor 

In addition, roughly 30 employees, advisors and professional services consultants hold 

smaller amounts of stock or options in Plaintiff. 

The defendant has not made an appearance. 

20. Other Matters:

Defendant has yet to make an appearance. Once Official Service has been made, if 

defendant does not appear, Plaintiff will be entitled to a default judgment. 

Case 3:06-cv-04639-CRB Document 38 Filed 07/13/07 Page 4 of 5
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

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-NY/2197017.2 5 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND 

PROPOSED ORDER – C06-04639 (CRB) 

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 

The Case Management Statement and Proposed Order is hereby adopted by the Court as 

the Case Management Order for the case and the parties are ordered to comply with this Order. 

In addition, the Court orders that the period of time for the plaintiff to complete service of process 

on the defendant be extended until November 28, 2007 and that a further Case Management 

Conference be held on November 16, 2007. 

[The Court may wish to make additional orders, such as: 

a. Referral of the parties to court or private ADR process; 

b. Schedule a further Case Management Conference; 

c. Schedule the time and content of supplemental disclosures; 

d. Specially set motions; 

e. Impose limitations on disclosure or discovery; 

f. Set time for disclosure of identity, background and opinions of experts; 

g. Set deadlines for completing fact and expert discovery; 

h. Set time for parties to meet and confer regarding pretrial submissions; 

i.. Set deadline for hearing motions directed to the merits of the case; 

j. Set deadline for submission of pretrial material; 

k. Set date and time for pretrial conference 

l. Set a date and time for trial.] 

Dated: CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: June 29, 2007 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

By: /s/Andrew J. Gray IV 

Andrew J. Gray IV (202137) 

2 Palo Alto Square, Suite 700 

3000 El Camino Real 

Palo Alto, CA 94306 

Tel: 650.843.4000 

Fax: 650.843.4001 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Tableau Software, Inc. 

July 13, 2007

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:06-cv-04639-CRB Document 38 Filed 07/13/07 Page 5 of 5