Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Artec Group, Inc. v. Klimov, 15-cv-03449-RMW (HRLx). (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160526a03 Visitors: 12
Filed: May 23, 2016
Latest Update: May 23, 2016
Summary: NOTICE OF RULING AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE RONALD M. WHYTE , District Judge . TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: On May 13, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 6 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, the Further Case Management Conference in the above-captioned matter of Artec Group, Inc. v. Andrey Klimov, et al. came before the Court, the Hon. Ronald M. Whyte presiding. Louise Ann Fern
More

NOTICE OF RULING AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

On May 13, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 6 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, the Further Case Management Conference in the above-captioned matter of Artec Group, Inc. v. Andrey Klimov, et al. came before the Court, the Hon. Ronald M. Whyte presiding. Louise Ann Fernandez and Benjamin Davidson (via Court Call) appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Artec Group, Inc. Oly Filatova appeared on behalf of Defendants Andrey Klimov, Yulia Klimova, Anna Stebleva, A-Star LLC, and ID-Wise SIA ("Defendants"). No appearance was entered on behalf of Defendant Axon Business Systems, LLC ("Axon").

The Court ordered as follows:

1. Plaintiff shall serve Axon within 45 days.

2. In the interim, the Court set the following discovery requirements1:

a. Plaintiff is to provide Defendants with all documents pursuant to the disclosure rules, which include: (i) any agreements and formation agreements alleged in the complaint and any agreement with Axon2; (ii) an itemization of alleged damages (disclosed in good faith but not binding on Plaintiff), which shall set forth types of damages and parameters of appropriate damages and amount thereof; (iii) any insurance policies and, if no insurance policies exist then a declaration shall be filed by Plaintiff's representative stating no insurance policies exist; and (iv) Any contracts Plaintiff claims it lost.

b. Defendants shall provide to Plaintiff (i) any documents which reference Trade Secrets listed in Plaintiff's Identification of Trade Secrets filed under seal on April 4, 2016; (ii) any documents pertaining to the formation of allegedly competing entities; and (iii) any contracts Defendants have as to former customers of Artec, with the agreement that if such documents(s) cannot be produced then Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with information such as a privilege log why the document(s) cannot be produced;

c. No depositions shall be taken until Defendant Axon is in the case.

3. The Court ordered that the parties shall submit a further Joint Discovery Plan prior to the next case management conference. The plan shall provide a list of the depositions the parties wish to take, which shall include the individual's name, description of the scope of the information to obtain (most knowledgeable information) and the reason for taking the deposition, and any further written discovery the parties wish to do. The Joint Discovery Plan shall include the agreed upon discovery and, alternative paragraphs providing the discovery not agreed upon, so that the plan can be converted to an order.

4. The parties' Joint Case Management Statement and Discovery Plan is due by July 15, 2016.

5. A Further Case Management Conference is set for July 22, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 6, 4th Floor, of the San Jose Courthouse.

6. Plaintiff is to prepare this order within seven days.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

It is so ordered.

FootNotes


1. Parties have agreed in correspondence that all documents pursuant to Sections 2(a) and (b) shall be produced no later than 5:00 p.m. on July 8, 2016.
2. Defendants have stated in correspondence that Section 2(a)(i) should read "any agreements and correspondence regarding formation of agreements alleged in the complaint and any agreement with Axon." Plaintiff does not believe this is reflected by the Minute Entry. However, Plaintiff has offered to agree to this revision if Defendants agree to produce "any contracts and correspondence related to contracts Defendants have as to former customers of Artec" (Section 2(b)(ii)). Defendants have not agreed to this proposal.
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