YellowCake, Inc. v. DashGo, Inc.

Opinion

Thomas P. Griffin, Jr., Esq. (SBN 155133) HEFNER, STARK & MAROIS, LLP 2150 River Plaza Drive, Suite 450 Sacramento, CA 95833 Telephone: (916) 925-6620 Facsimile: (916) 925-1127 Email: tgriffin@hsmlaw.com

Seth L. Berman, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) ABRAMS, FENSTERMAN, FENSTERMAN, EISMAN, 3 Dakota Drive, Suite 300 Lake Success, NY 11042 Telephone: (516) 328-2300 Facsimile: (516) 328-6638 Email: sberman@abramslaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Yellowcake, Inc.

Richard J. Idell, Esq. (SBN 069033) Ory Sandel, Esq. (SBN 233204) 1455 First Street, Suite 301 Napa, CA 94559 Telephone: (707) 261-7000 Facsimile: (707) 255-6876 Email: ridell@dpf-law.com osandel@dpf-law.com Attorneys for Defendants Dashgo, Inc. and Audiomicro, Inc. d.b.a. Adrev

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT YELLOWCAKE, INC., a California CASE NO. 1:21-cv-00803-AWI-BAM corporation, STIPULATION RE: EXTENSION OF Plaintiff, TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO: (1) PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR v. PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANTS – SET DASHGO, INC., a Delaware corporation; ONE; AND (2) PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET and AUDIOMICRO, INC. d/b/a ADREV, a OF INTERROGATORIES TO Delaware corporation, DEFENDANTS; Defendants. ORDER [Civil Local Rule 144(a)] (E-filing) Plaintiff Yellowcake, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Yellowcake”), on the one hand, and defendants Dashgo, Inc. (“Dashgo”) and Audiomicro, Inc. d.b.a. Adrev (“Adrev”) (collectively, “Defendants”), on the other hand (collectively, the “Parties”; each individually, a “Party”), by and through their respective attorneys, hereby agree and stipulate as follows with reference to the following facts: 1. On August 13, 2021, Dashgo served Yellowcake with Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“Dashgo’s RFPD”) via U.S. mail and email. 2. On October 12, 2021, Yellowcake served its written responses to Dashgo’s RFPD via email only. 3. Defendants contend that Yellowcake’s written responses to Dashgo’s RFPD were served late, and that, as a result, all objections were waived, including objections on the grounds of privilege and confidentiality. Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants (9th Cir. 1992) 959 F.2d 1468, 1473; Franklin v. Tate (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021) No. 119CV01170AWISABPC, 2021 WL 1561958, at *3 (citing cases); Yellowcake disputes and denies Defendants’ contention and contends instead that Yellowcake’s written responses to Dashgo’s RFPD were timely because no scheduling order has yet been entered in this action. Defendants dispute and deny Yellowcake’s contention. 4. On November 1, 2021, Yellowcake served Defendants with Requests for Production to Defendants – Set One (“Plaintiff’s RFPD”) via email only. 5. On November 10, 2021, Yellowcake served Defendants with a First Set of Interrogatories (“Plaintiff’s Interrogatories”) via email only. 6. Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s RFPD and Plaintiff’s Interrogatories are due 30 days from the date of electronic service; Defendants dispute and deny Plaintiff’s contention and contend instead that electronic service alone is not a permitted form of service under Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless Defendants consented to such electronic service in writing, Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b)(2)(E), and that Defendants did not so consent. Plaintiff disputes and denies Defendants’ contention. 7. Notwithstanding the above-described disputes and differences, Defendants have requested an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s RFPD and Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, and Plaintiff has agreed to such extension of time on the terms set forth herein. 8. Civil Local Rule 144(a) of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “Unless the filing date has been set by order of the Court, an initial stipulation extending time for no more than twenty-eight (28) days . . . to respond to interrogatories, . . . or requests for production of documents may be filed without approval of the Court if the stipulation is signed on behalf of all parties who have appeared in the action and are affected by the stipulation. All other extensions of time must be approved by the Court.” NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree and stipulate as follows: A. Subject to a court order hereon, and without waiver of Dashgo’s right to compel further responses, Yellowcake’s objections on the grounds of privilege and confidentiality to Dashgo’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One shall be deemed timely. B. Subject to a court order hereon, Defendants’ written responses to Yellowcake’s Requests for Production to Defendants – Set One shall be due on or before December 31, 2021, or a date thereafter in the Court’s discretion. C. Subject to a court order hereon, Defendants’ written responses to Yellowcake’s First Set of Interrogatories shall be due on or before December 31, 2021, or a date thereafter in the Court’s discretion. SO STIPULATED.

[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] ABRAMS, FENSTERMAN, FENSTERMAN, EISMAN, FORMATO, FERRARA, WOLF & CARONE, LLP

By: /s/ Seth L. Berman Seth L. Berman (admitted pro hac vice) Attorneys for Plaintiff Yellowcake, Inc. DICKENSON PEATMAN & FOGARTY P.C. By: /s/ Ory Sandel Richard J. Idell Ory Sandel Attorneys for Defendants Dashgo, Inc. and Audiomicro, Inc. d.b.a. Adrev

Pursuant to the Stipulation of the Parties, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. Yellowcake, Inc.’s objections on the grounds of privilege and confidentiality to Dashgo, Inc.’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One are hereby deemed timely. 2. Defendants Dashgo, Inc. and Audiomicro, Inc. d.b.a. Adrev’s written responses to Yellowcake, Inc.’s Requests for Production to Defendants – Set One are due on or before December 31, 2021. 3. Defendants Dashgo, Inc. and Audiomicro, Inc. d.b.a. Adrev’s written responses to Yellowcake, Inc.’s First Set of Interrogatories are due on or before December 31, 2021.

Dated: December 13, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE