Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Atlantic-Pacific Processing Systems, Inc. v. Dermaktive, LLC, 2:16-CV-00739-JAD-PAL. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180221980 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jan. 04, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 04, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE DEFENDANTS DONALD KASDON AND T1 PAYMENTS LLC'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [DKT. 121] AND SUPPLEMENT TO EMERGENCY MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [DKT. 122]. PEGGY A. LEEN , Magistrate Judge . Defendants T1 PAYMENTS LLC and DONALD KASDON (the "T1 Parties"), and, Plaintiff ATLANTIC-PACIFIC PROCESSING SYSTEMS, INC. ("APPS"), Defendants DERMAKTIVE, LLC, JORDAN DUFNER, and specially a
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE DEFENDANTS DONALD KASDON AND T1 PAYMENTS LLC'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [DKT. 121] AND SUPPLEMENT TO EMERGENCY MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [DKT. 122].

Defendants T1 PAYMENTS LLC and DONALD KASDON (the "T1 Parties"), and, Plaintiff ATLANTIC-PACIFIC PROCESSING SYSTEMS, INC. ("APPS"), Defendants DERMAKTIVE, LLC, JORDAN DUFNER, and specially appearing Defendants ADAM WELLINGTON, UPSURGE, LLC, UPSURGE MEDIA GROUP, LLC, and WIDO, LLC (the "DermAktive Defendants") (all parties hereto collectively the "Parties"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby agree as follows and submit the following Stipulation and [Proposed] Order by and through their counsel, and hereby agree to the following recitals in resolution of Defendants Donald Kasdon and T1 Payments LLC's Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum and for Protective Order [Dkt. 121] and Supplement thereto [Dkt. 122].

RECITALS

WHEREAS, On December 7, 2017, counsel for the T1 Parties was notified for the first time by counsel for APPS that Subpoenas Duces Tecum were issued to Vantiv, LLC; Network Merchants, LLC; and Payvision (collectively, the "Subpoenas");

WHEREAS, On December 8, 2017, counsel for the T1 Parties sent an Objection Letter to the Subpoenas.

WHEREAS, On December 8, 2017, Kory L. Kaplan, Esq. ("Mr. Kaplan"), counsel for the T1 Parties, and Catherine A. Close, Esq. ("Ms. Close"), counsel for APPS, met and conferred.

WHEREAS, On December 8, 2017, Donald Kasdon and T1 Payments LLC filed an Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum and for Protective Order [Dkt. 121].

WHEREAS, On December 11, 2017, the T1 Parties filed a Supplement to their Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum and for Protective Order [Dkt. 122].

WHEREAS, On December 14, 2017, APPS filed a Response to the T1 Parties' Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum and for Protective Order [Dkt. 125].

WHEREAS, Between December 18, 2017 and December 20, 2017, Mr. Kaplan and Ms. Close "met and conferred" again and were able to come to an agreement as outlined in this stipulation.

WHEREAS, Ms. Close:

(1) notified all subpoenaed parties that the previously issued subpoenas duces tecum were withdrawn and reissued with notice to undersigned counsel;

(2) notified Quantum Legal Support and Hutchison & Steffen, the deposition officers, to destroy all records provided in response to the subpoenas duces tecum, and any copies, notes or other materials that would reveal the contents of the documents received, if any have been produced or received; and

(3) provided declarations from Quantum Legal Support and Hutchison & Steffen stating that any documents that had already been received were not produced to APPS or its counsel and that no documents were able to be received in the future since the upload function was disabled.

WHEREAS, The T1 Parties engaged the services of Litigation Services to act as the substitute deposition officer to receive the documents responsive to the subpoenas duces tecum, Bates label them if they are not already when received, and provide them to Mr. Kaplan only.

WHEREAS, The T1 Parties will review the documents responsive to the subpoenas duces tecum, redact if necessary, and provide a privilege log to Ms. Close by January 15, 2018. However, if the documents are voluminous, the Parties agree in good faith to allow an additional reasonable amount of time for the T1 Parties to review and redact, if necessary.

WHEREAS, If APPS has any objections to the redactions by the T1 Parties, if any, the T1 Parties will submit the unredacted documents to the Court for an in camera review and both Parties may submit further briefing in support of their positions.

STIPULATION

IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto as follows:

1. The Hearing on Donald Kasdon and T1 Payments' Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum and for Protective Order [Dkt. 121] and Supplement thereto [Dkt. 122], currently scheduled for January 16, 2018, is vacated, with the Parties to each bear their own attorneys' fees and costs;

2. The T1 Parties will review the documents responsive to the subpoenas duces tecum, redact if necessary, and provide a privilege log to Ms. Close by January 15, 2018. However, if the documents are voluminous, the Parties agree in good faith to allow an additional reasonable amount of time for the T1 Parties to review and redact, if necessary.

3. If APPS has any objections to the redactions by the T1 Parties, if any, the T1 Parties will submit the unredacted documents to the Court for an in camera review and both Parties may submit further briefing in support of their positions.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing Stipulation and good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The Hearing on Donald Kasdon and T1 Payments' Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum and for Protective Order [Dkt. 121] and Supplement thereto [Dkt. 122], currently scheduled for January 16, 2018, is vacated, with the Parties to each bear their own attorneys' fees and costs;

2. The T1 Parties will review the documents responsive to the subpoenas duces tecum, redact if necessary, and provide a privilege log to Ms. Close by January 15, 2018. However, if the documents are voluminous, the Parties agree in good faith to allow an additional reasonable amount of time for the T1 Parties to review and redact, if necessary.

3. If APPS has any objections to the redactions by the T1 Parties, if any, the T1 Parties will submit the unredacted documents to the Court for an in camera review and both Parties may submit further briefing in support of their positions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer