V5 Technologies v. Switch Ltd.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 25, 2019
• Docket: 2:17-cv-02349
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10

11 V5 TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No.: 2:17-cv-02349-KJD-NJK 12 Plaintiff(s), Order 13 v.

14 SWITCH, LTD., 15 Defendant(s). 16 The undersigned’s chambers received a telephone call from opposing counsel regarding 17 the logistics for the anticipated filing of a discovery motion. The Court hereby SETS a telephonic 18 conference for tomorrow, September 26, 2019, at 10:30 a.m. Counsel shall appear telephonically 19 by calling the Court conference line at 877-402-9757 at least five minutes prior to the hearing. 20 The conference code is 6791056. In order to ensure a clear recording of the hearing, the call must 21 be made using a land line phone. Cell phone calls, as well as the use of a speaker phone, are 22 prohibited. ONLY COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE PERMITTED TO APPEAR FOR A 23 PARTY DURING THIS CONFERENCE. 24 The above conference will focus on the logistics of the anticipated discovery motion, rather 25 than the substance of the parties’ dispute. Among other issues for discussion, counsel shall be 26 prepared to address the following: (1) why an in camera submission is appropriate given that the 27 28 1 documents at issue are apparently known to both parties;! (2) why the submission of 42,000 pages 2|| of documents is truly necessary; (3) similarly, how the parties intend to present a discovery motion on such a large volume of material in a manner that allows for judicial resolution; and (4) how 4| counsel could be found to have sufficiently conferred in good faith given the extraordinary volume 5|| of materials in dispute.” 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: September 25, 2019 8 o AS Z a Nancy J. Keppé, 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 —___ ' Conversely, to the extent the parties actually seek to shield the documents from the public 24\| but not from each other, the typical sealing procedures would generally be used. 25 > See King Tuna, Inc. y. Luen Thai Fishing Ventures, Ltd., 2010 WL 11515316, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2010) (finding submission of much less voluminous motion practice evidenced that 26|| counsel had “failed to exercise discretion and judgment to narrow the issues presented to the Court to those issues that truly require court intervention’); see also Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 27] 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015) (the meet-and-confer process is meant to eliminate “or to at least narrow and focus matters in controversy” (quoting Nevada Power vy. Monsanto, 151 28] F.R.D. 118, 120 (D. Nev. 1993)).