Federal Trade Commission v. Directv, Inc. et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01129

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting {{351}} Stipulation Permitting the Parties to Bring Additional Technology into the Courthouse.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 JeffTillotson, SBN 139372 Eric D. Edmondson, D.C. Bar NO. 450294 jtillotson@TillotsonLaw. com Erika Wodinsky, Cal. Bar NO. 091700 2 Tillotson Law Boris Yankilovich, Cal. Bar NO. 257887 750 North Saint Paul, Suite 600 Jacob A. Snow, Cal. Bar NO. 270988 3 Dallas, TX 75201 901 Market Street, Suite 570 Telephone: (214) 382-3040 San Francisco, CA 94103 4 (415) 848-5100/(415) 848-5184 (fax) Pete Marketos, Pro Hac Vice eedmondson@ftc.gov; ewodinsky@ftc.gov; 5 pete.marketos@rgmfirm.com byankilovich@ftc.gov; jsnow@ftc.gov Reese Gordon Marketos LLP 6 750 North Saint Paul, Suite 600 Raymond E. McKown, Cal. Bar NO. 150975 Dallas, TX 75201 Stacy Procter, Cal. Bar NO. 221078 7 Telephone: (214) 382-9810 Kenneth H. Abbe, Cal. Bar NO. 172416 10877 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700 8 Chad S. Hummel, SBN 139055 Los Angeles, CA 90024 chummel@sidley.com (31 0) 824-4343/(31 0) 824-4380 (fax) 9 Mark D. Campbell, SBN 180528 rmckown@ftc.gov; sprocter@ftc.gov; mcampbell@sidley.com kabbe@ftc. gov 10 Bridget S. Johnsen, SBN 210778 bjohnsen@sidley.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 11 Ryan M. Sandrock, SBN 251781 Federal Trade Commission rsandrock@sidley.com 12 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street, Suite 2000 13 San Francisco, CA 941 04 Telephone: (415) 722-1200 14 Facsimile: (415) 772-7 400 15 Attorneys for Defendants DIRECTV and DIRECTV, LLC 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 20 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Case No. 3:15-cv-01129 HSG 21 Plaintiff, Assigned to the Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 22 v. STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 23 PERMITTING THE PARTIES TO BRING DIRECTV, a corporation, and DIRECTV, ADDITIONAL TECHNOLOGY INTO THE 24 LLC, a limited liability company, COURTHOUSE 25 Defendants. 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PERMITTING THE PARTIES TO BRING ADDITIONAL TECHNOLOGY INTO THE COURTHOUSE CASE NO. 3:15-cv-01129 HSG 1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, and as previously agreed by the Parties (as stipulated to in 2 the Stipulation and Order Permitting the Parties to Bring Additional Technology into the Courthouse 3 [Dkt. 299] and the Amended Joint Pretrial Statement [Dkt. 337]), the Federal Trade Commission 4 ("FTC") and Defendants DIRECTV and DIRECTV, LLC (collectively "DIRECTV") hereby stipulate 5 and jointly request an order permitting the parties to bring into the Courthouse additional technology 6 and equipment for use during the trial commencing on August 14, 2017, consistent with the Court's 7 previous orders and statements during the August 1, 2017 pretrial conference. 1 8 During trial, both the FTC and DIRECTV intend to introduce exhibits including, among other 9 things, numerous print ads in various shapes and sizes and multiple iterations ofDIRECTV's website 10 (including still captures, video captures, and interactive versions). 11 On March 3, 2017, the parties' respective counsel and technology personnel tested the 12 courtroom trial technology and discovered certain issues that the parties believe may impede their 13 ability to efficiently present certain evidence to the Court. First, during witness examinations, the 14 parties may use exhibits in the form of electronic documents, videos, or interactive websites. Without 15 the requested switches, the parties cannot efficiently switch between the various media needed to 16 display differently formatted exhibits. Second, in DIRECTV's view, the resolution ofthe courtroom 17 monitors diminishes the visibility of the advertising. As an example (again only in DIRECTV's view), 18 when attempting to display print ads in a digital form, certain text is distorted and unreadable on the 19 courtroom monitors. 20 The parties appreciate the Court's concern regarding technology compatibility, 21 seamlessness, efficiency, and the Court's ability to run the remainder of its docket using its 22 existing technology without interruption from this case. Therefore, the parties request permission 23 to bring in the following additional technology and equipment, which will operate independently 24 from the Court's existing system: 1 25 The Court has granted nearly identical requests in its January 31, 2017 and February 21, 2017 Orders on the parties' Stipulation and Proposed Order Permitting the Parties to Bring Additional 26 Technology into the Courthouse. [Dkt. Nos. 290, 299]. This Stipulation differs in that it (1) requests eight monitors (instead of the seven previously requested) in order to provide an additional monitor 27 to the law clerk per the Court's request; (2) requests one 4x4 switch to accommodate the additional monitor and to facilitate setup; and (3) requests one additional laptop for the witness stand. 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PERMITTING THE PARTIES TO BRING ADDITIONAL TECHNOLOGY INTO THE COURTHOUSE CASE NO.3: 15-CV-01129 HSG 1 (1) One 4x8 switch/distribution amplifier; 2 (2) Two 4x1 switches; 3 (3) One 4x4 switch; 4 (4) One speaker system; 5 (5) Eight 19-inch High Resolution Monitors for the bench (1), the clerk (1), witness 6 stand (1), counsel tables (2 for each side), and lecterns (1); 7 (6) One LCD projector and stand; and 8 (7) One projector screen; 9 (8) Three laptops per side (for trial exhibits, transcript feed, and witness stand); 10 (9) Two tables for trial-technology personnel; 11 (10) Two monitors for trial-technology personnel; 12 (11) One Elmo digital camera; 13 (12) Two printers for work rooms; 14 (13) Assorted cabling. 15 The parties have coordinated with the Courtroom Deputy to set up and test the technology 16 on Friday, August 11,2017, at 9:00a.m. All equipment and necessary wiring will be placed in a 17 manner so as not to interfere with other activities in the Courtroom when trial is not in session and 18 to avoid any unsafe condition. The parties remain mindful of the Court's docket and resources and 19 will do their utmost to reduce interruption and inconvenience. 20 Ill 21 Ill 22 Ill 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PERMITTING THE PARTIES TO BRING ADDITIONAL TECHNOLOGY INTO THE COURTHOUSE CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01129 HSG 1 SO STIPULATED: 2 3 Dated: August 7, 2017 4 By: /s/ Jacob A. Snow Jacob A. Snow 5 Counsel for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission 6 Dated: August 7, 201 7 7 By: /s/ JeffTillotson Jeff Tillotson 8 Pete Marketos Chad Hummel 9 Counsel for Defendants DIRECTV and DIRECTV, LLC 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PERMITTING THE PARTIES TO BRING ADDITIONAL TECHNOLOGY INTO THE COURTHOUSE CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01129 HSG 1 FILER'S ATTESTATION 2 I am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to file the foregoing 3 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Permitting the Parties to Bring Additional Technology into the 4 Courthouse in compliance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3). I hereby attest that the signatory has 5 concurred in this filing. 6 7 Dated: August 7, 2017 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 8 By: /s/ Ryan M. Sandrock 9 Ryan M. Sandrock 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PERMITTING THE.PARTIES TO BRING ADDITIONAL TECHNOLOGY INTO THE COURTHOUSE CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01129 HSG 1 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 August 8, 2017 Dated: ----------------- HON. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 4 United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PERMITTING THE PARTIES TO BRING ADDITIONAL TECHNOLOGYINTOTHECOURTHOUSE CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01129 HSG