From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Charles Schwab & Co. (In Re Subpoena to [24]7.AI, Inc.)

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Apr 15, 2024
Misc. 5:24-mc-80080 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2024)

Opinion

Misc. 5:24-mc-80080

04-15-2024

In Re Subpoena to [24]7.AI, Inc., v. CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., Defendant. PARUS HOLDINGS, INC. Plaintiff, PARUS HOLDINGS, INC. Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Defendant. PARUS HOLDINGS, INC. Plaintiff, v. FMR LLC D/B/A FIDELITY INVESTMENTS, Defendant.

Alan P. Block California State Bar No. 143783 MCKOOL SMITH, P.C. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF PARUS HOLDINGS, INC. John V. Picone III, CA Bar No. 187226 Jeffrey M. Ratinoff, (CA Bar No. 197241 SPENCER FANE LLP ATTORNEYS FOR THIRD PARTY 24-7AI Richard L. Wynne, Jr., TX Bar No. 24003214 Allia V.M. Howard, TX Bar No. 24127037 HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP John V. Picone III, CA Bar No. 187226 Jeffrey M. Ratinoff, CA Bar No. 197241 SPENCER FANE LLP ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CAPITAL ONE N.A. Jennifer Parker Ainsworth Texas State Bar No. 00784720 WILSON, ROBERTSON & CORNELIUS, P.C. John V. Picone III, CA Bar No. 187226 Jeffrey M. Ratinoff, CA Bar No. 197241 SPENCER FANE LLP ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT FMR LLC. D/B/A/ FIDELITY INVESTMENTS


Underlying Actions:

Nos. 2:21-cv-00393-JRG (lead case); 2:21-cv-00395-JRG (member case); 2:21-cv-00396-JRG (member cases);

U.S. District Court (E.D. Tex.)

Alan P. Block California State Bar No. 143783

MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF PARUS HOLDINGS, INC.

John V. Picone III, CA Bar No. 187226

Jeffrey M. Ratinoff, (CA Bar No. 197241 SPENCER FANE LLP

ATTORNEYS FOR THIRD PARTY 24-7AI

Richard L. Wynne, Jr., TX Bar No. 24003214

Allia V.M. Howard, TX Bar No. 24127037

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

John V. Picone III, CA Bar No. 187226

Jeffrey M. Ratinoff, CA Bar No. 197241 SPENCER FANE LLP

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CAPITAL ONE N.A.

Jennifer Parker Ainsworth Texas State Bar No. 00784720

WILSON, ROBERTSON & CORNELIUS, P.C.

John V. Picone III, CA Bar No. 187226

Jeffrey M. Ratinoff, CA Bar No. 197241

SPENCER FANE LLP

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT FMR LLC. D/B/A/ FIDELITY INVESTMENTS

Judge: Hon. Rodney Gilstrap

STIPULATION AND ORDER

HONORABLE NATHANAEL M. COUSINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Parus Holdings Inc. (“Parus”), third party [24]7.ai (“[24]7”), and Defendants FMR LLC D/B/A Fidelity Investments (“Fidelity”) and Capital One, N.A. (“Capital One”) hereby submit this Joint Stipulation and state as follows:

WHEREAS, on March 29, 2024, the Parties met and conferred via Zoom and reached an impasse with regards to the production of source code by [24]7.

WHEREAS, on April 1, 2024, Parus filed a Motion to Compel in this Court, seeking that [24]7 produce (1) certain grammar files in a human readable format or the proprietary tools required to make such files human readable; (2) the Java code invoked to perform operations to manage call flow; and (3) the definitions for various previously produced files. Dkt. 1.

WHEREAS, on April 4, 2024, the Court issued its Order Requiring Further Meet and Confer and Filing of Joint Discovery Letter Brief, which set the deadline of April 15, 2024. Dkt. 5.

WHEREAS, on April 9, 2024, the Parties met and conferred via Zoom. [24]7 informed Parus that it would need time to further investigate Parus' source code requests and would follow-up via email.

WHEREAS, on April 11 and 12, 2024, the Parties negotiated a compromise via email.

And WHEREAS the Parties, on or about April 12, 2024, reached the following agreements: (1) [24]7 represented that does not have certain grammar files in a human readable format and it does not have the tools required to make such files human readable; (2) Capital One agreed that documented call flows may be used as evidence and will not later argue that failure to use actual source code was insufficient evidence; and (3) Parus agreed to a stipulated dismissal of the Motion to Compel.

This stipulation is limited to the [24]7 Voxify source code as represented by Capital One call flows and does not extend to any other source code related issue in this matter.

NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND THE PARTIES JOINTLY REQUEST, that the Court dismiss this miscellaneous action.

ORDER

Before the Court is the Stipulation seeking dismissal of the miscellaneous case. PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Charles Schwab & Co. (In Re Subpoena to [24]7.AI, Inc.)

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Apr 15, 2024
Misc. 5:24-mc-80080 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2024)
Case details for

Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Charles Schwab & Co. (In Re Subpoena to [24]7.AI, Inc.)

Case Details

Full title:In Re Subpoena to [24]7.AI, Inc., v. CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC.…

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Apr 15, 2024

Citations

Misc. 5:24-mc-80080 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2024)