United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 On August 23, 2004, plaintiff Digital Envoy, Inc. ("Digital") filed a surreply in response to Google's reply brief.
That same day, Google filed its objection to the surreply and moved to strike it on the basis that the brief was filed without
permission from the Court. On August 24, 2004, Digital filed a request to file its surreply brief. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule
7-3(d), the Court sustains Google's objection and grants its motion to strike the surreply filed by Digital.
*E-FILED 8/27/04*
NOT FOR CITATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
DIGITAL ENVOY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE, INC.,
Defendant.
/
NO. 5:04-cv-1497 RS
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE
ORDER FOR STAGED
DISCOVERY
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Google, Inc. ("Google") filed a motion for entry of a protective order requiring discovery
to proceed in stages, with the first stage limited to certain aspects of an agreement entered into between the
parties in November, 2000. The motion was noticed for hearing on September 22, 2004, however, by
agreement of the parties, the Court addressed the motion during the case management conference held on
August 18, 2004. Following the conference, Google was afforded time to file its reply brief to the motion.1
Based on all papers filed to date, as well as on the argument presented to the Court at the case
Case 5:04-cv-01497-RS Document 38 Filed 08/27/2004 Page 1 of 5
Digital Envoy Inc., v. Google Inc.,
Doc. 38
Dockets.Justia.com
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
management conference, the Court denies the motion for the reasons set forth below.
II. BACKGROUND
This action stems from a dispute between