Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Dcg Systems, Inc v. Checkpoint Technologies

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


October 19, 2012

DCG SYSTEMS, INC.,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CHECKPOINT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Paul S. Grewal United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER RE PARTIES' OCTOBER 2, 2012 DISCOVERY MOTIONS (Re: Docket Nos. 124, 128, 134)

In this patent infringement suit, the parties bring three motions: (1) Plaintiff DCG Systems,

Inc.'s ("DCG") motion to compel further responses to requests for production and second set of 19 interrogatories; (2) DCG's motion for sanctions; and (3) Defendant Checkpoint Technologies 20

LLC's ("Checkpoint") motion for protective order and cost-shifting. The parties oppose each 21 other's respective motions. On October 2, 2012, the parties appeared for hearing. Having reviewed 22 the papers and considered the arguments of counsel, the court is of the opinion that a lengthy 23 opinion is less desirable than a set of clear, even if terse, rulings that will allow this matter to move 24 forward without further undue friction. 25

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that DCG's motion to compel is GRANTED.

Except for email, Checkpoint shall produce documents responsive to DCG's document 27 requests and not merely relevant to the disputed issues in this case as determined by Checkpoint. 28

For email, Checkpoint shall produce documents using search terms as a proxy for responsiveness.

As the parties agreed in their joint case management statement,*fn1 documents, including those 2 on the August 22 and 23 hard drives, shall be produced with a Concordance load file. 3 No later than October 26, 2012, Checkpoint shall further respond to interrogatory no. 9. All 4 other discovery shall be produced no later than November 9, 2012. 5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that DCG's motion for sanctions is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Checkpoint's motion for protective order is GRANTED- IN-PART.

Because Checkpoint produced documents on a hard drive on October 1, 2012, including 9 responsive .pst email files, DCG shall promptly return the .pst email files Bates range CP 10 00108426-CP108428 that Checkpoint inadvertently produced on August 22 and 23, 2012.

Checkpoint's request for cost-shifting is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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