eBAY, INC. v. DOTCOM RETAIL LIMITED, 13-cv-02853-SC (EDL). (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20141021j12
Visitors: 6
Filed: Oct. 07, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 07, 2014
Summary: ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 42 ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE, Magistrate Judge. This Court is in receipt of the Parties' joint letter, dated September 26, 2014, concerning Defendants' request that Plaintiff be ordered to produce documents relevant to a number of discovery requests. ( See Dkt. 42 at 5.) It appears that some or all of Defendants' requests have been resolved by agreements to produce documents. ( See id. at 5, 7 (Plaintiff agrees to produce documents "reflecting its knowledge and awareness of Def
Summary: ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 42 ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE, Magistrate Judge. This Court is in receipt of the Parties' joint letter, dated September 26, 2014, concerning Defendants' request that Plaintiff be ordered to produce documents relevant to a number of discovery requests. ( See Dkt. 42 at 5.) It appears that some or all of Defendants' requests have been resolved by agreements to produce documents. ( See id. at 5, 7 (Plaintiff agrees to produce documents "reflecting its knowledge and awareness of Defe..
More
ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 42
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE, Magistrate Judge.
This Court is in receipt of the Parties' joint letter, dated September 26, 2014, concerning Defendants' request that Plaintiff be ordered to produce documents relevant to a number of discovery requests. (See Dkt. 42 at 5.) It appears that some or all of Defendants' requests have been resolved by agreements to produce documents. (See id. at 5, 7 (Plaintiff agrees to produce documents "reflecting its knowledge and awareness of Defendants' use of the [allegedly] infringing marks, without restricting responsive documents by any date limitations or by jurisdiction" and "reflecting its enforcement activities in the United States with no date restriction." (emphasis in original)).) Therefore, the Parties shall file each request still at issue, if any, "in full, followed immediately by the objections and/or responses thereto" as detailed in Local Civil Rule 37-2, by October 10, 2014, at 1:00 p.m. The Court does not require any additional argument or briefing on this issue. The Parties are advised that should the Court determine that a hearing is necessary, it will be scheduled for October 21, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom E, 15th Floor, San Francisco.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
