Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Robin Antonick, An Illinois Citizen v. Electronic Arts Inc.

January 17, 2012

ROBIN ANTONICK, AN ILLINOIS CITIZEN,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
ELECTRONIC ARTS INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte Northern District of California

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Robert B. Carey (Pro Hac Vice) 2 Leonard W. Aragon (Pro Hac Vice) 3 11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 4 Telephone: (602) 840-5900 Facsimile: (602) 840-3012 5 Email: rob@hbsslaw.com leonard@hbsslaw.com 6 7 THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC Stuart M. Paynter (226147) 8 Jennifer L. Murray (Pro Hac Vice) 1200 G Street N.W., Suite 800 9 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 626-4486 10 Facsimile: (866) 734-0622 11 stuart@smplegal.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Robin Antonick 13 14

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL

WHEREAS on January 10, 2012, the Court held hearing on Plaintiff's December 2, 2011

Motion to Compel; 3

4 interrogatories; 5

6 submit a stipulation and proposed order memorializing the Court's rulings; 7

8 order; 9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

Defendant shall produce all source code, source code documentation and development 11 materials in its possession for any John Madden Football or Madden NFL videogame that is listed 12 in its Fourth Amended Response to Interrogatory No. 1 and was released on or before January 1, 13 For any versions for which Defendant does not produce source code, Defendant's Counsel 15 shall certify in writing that a diligent search was conducted and that the source code cannot be 16 found; 17

January 6, 2012 Motion to Compel based on Plaintiff's analysis to date; 20 21 withdrawn without prejudice to re-file following Plaintiff's service of the amended interrogatory 22 responses described above. Plaintiff shall not move to compel any additional source code for any 23 title released after January 1, 1996 prior to the service of the amended interrogatory responses 24 described above; 25

WHEREAS on January 6, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to compel responses to certain

WHEREAS the Court having considered the papers and argument requested that the parties

WHEREAS the parties have met and conferred and agreed to the entry of this proposed

Within ninety (90) days of receiving a complete production in response to this order, Plaintiff shall prepare and serve amended responses to the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.