Microsoft, Government Seek Additional Time for Document Production
United States v. Microsoft Corp. et al.
- Case NameUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ET. AL., Respondents.
- CourtUnited States District Court for the Western District of Washington
- DocketNo. 2:15-cv-00102
- Cross-Reference
- Code Sections
- Subject Area/Tax Topics
- Jurisdictions
- LanguageEnglish
- Tax Analysts Document NumberDoc 2016-6191
- Tax Analysts Electronic Citation2016 TNT 57-14
United States v. Microsoft Corp. et al.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
STIPULATED MOTION AND PROPOSED ORDER MODIFYING DECEMBER 9, 2015,
ORDER REGARDING EFFECT OF ORDER GRANTING ENFORCEMENT OF SUMMONSES
NOTED FOR: March 21, 2016
Petitioner United States of America ("United States") and Respondent Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"), through their respective undersigned counsel of record, stipulate as follows:
1. On March 12, 2015, the Court entered a Briefing and Hearing Scheduling Order (Dkt. # 29) (the "Stipulated Scheduling Order"). Among other things, the Stipulated Scheduling Order required all respondents to file brief(s) regarding any specific production requests in dispute within 20 days following entry of an order enforcing summonses at issue.
2. On November 23, 2015, the Court entered an order granting the United States' petition to enforce document summonses in this case, and testimonial summonses in the consolidated case United States v. Mundie (Case No. 15-103, Dkt. # 104) (the "Order Granting Enforcement"). This stipulated motion pertains only to United States v. Microsoft Corp. -- the document summonses.
3. On December 4, 2015, the United States and Microsoft filed a Stipulated Motion and Proposed Order Regarding Effect of Order Granting Enforcement (Dkt. # 109) (the "December 4, 2015 Stipulated Motion"). The United States and Microsoft stated their intentions to meet and confer in an effort to resolve as many of Microsoft's request-specific objections as possible. Microsoft and the United States stipulated and jointly requested that the Court modify the Stipulated Scheduling Order, with respect to the document summonses, to allow the parties additional time to meet and confer.
4. Microsoft estimated that, by January 29, 2016, it would be able to produce all the documents to which it did not have specific objections, and that, by February 16, 2016, it would be able to produce final privilege logs. The parties requested an additional 30 days from February 16 to meet and confer on any remaining disputes with respect to particular requests. Microsoft would then have until April 1, 2016, to file any brief regarding specific production requests still in dispute as contemplated by the Stipulated Scheduling Order. The United States would be allowed the 25 days following that event to respond and Microsoft would have 5 days to reply.
5. By Order dated December 9, 2015, the Court granted the December 4, 2015 Stipulated Motion (Dkt. # 110).
6. During the ensuing three months, counsel for the United States and Microsoft conferred on numerous occasions in order to resolve as many disputes regarding specific production requests as possible. Significant progress has been made to that end.
7. As contemplated in the December 4, 2015 Stipulated Motion, Microsoft produced documents as to which it did not have specific objections on January 29, 2016.
8. Following discussions between counsel for the United States and Microsoft, Microsoft produced additional documents on March 15, 2016, and Microsoft has agreed to move forward with the production of additional documents responsive to certain requests in summonses issued to Microsoft on October 30, 2014, November 19, 2014 and November 20, 2014.
9. In addition, Microsoft served privilege logs on February 16, 2016 with respect to the three summonses.
10. The undersigned counsel believe that additional discussions may result in a resolution or narrowing of remaining disputes pertaining to specific document requests.
11. Accordingly, the United States and Microsoft respectfully request that they be given an additional 60 days from March 17, 2016 (until May 16, 2016), to meet and confer on any remaining disputes with respect to particular requests. Microsoft will then have until June 1, 2016, to file any brief regarding specific production requests still in dispute as contemplated by the Stipulated Scheduling Order. The United States would be allowed the 25 days following that event to respond as provided by the Stipulated Scheduling Order and Microsoft would have 5 days to reply.
Respectfully submitted this 21st day of March, 2016.
Acting Assistant Attorney
General
Noreene Stehlik
James E. Weaver
Jeremy Hendon
Amy Matchison
Noreene Stehlik
James E. Weaver
Senior Litigation Counsel, Tax
Division
Jeremy Hendon
Amy Matchison
Trial Attorneys, Tax Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 683, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044-0683
Email: Noreene.C.Stehlik@usdoj.gov
James.E.Weaver@usdoj.gov
Jeremy.Hendon@usdoj.gov
Amy.T.Matchison@usdoj.gov
Telephone: (202) 514-6489
(202) 305-4929
Annette L. Hayes
Acting United States Attorney
Western District of Washington
Attorneys for the United States of
America
Calfo Harrigan Leyh & Eakes LLP
By: Patricia A. Eakes
By: Andrea D. Ostrovsky
Patricia A. Eakes, WSBA #18888
Andrea D. Ostrovsky, WSBA #37749
999 Third Avenue, Suite 4400
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel: (206) 623-1700
Fax: (206) 623-8717
Email: pattye@calfoharrigan.com
Email: andreao@calfoharrigan.com
Baker & Mckenzie LLP
By: Daniel A. Rosen
Daniel A. Rosen, Pro Hac Vice
452 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone: (212) 626-4272
Phone: (212) 626-4272
Email: daniel.rosen@bakermckenzie.com
Baker & Mckenzie LLP
By: Phillip Joseph Taylor
By: Mireille R. Oldak
Phillip Joseph Taylor, Pro Hac Vice
Mireille R. Oldak, Pro Hac Vice
815 Connecticut Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 835-6176
Fax: (202) 452-7074
Email: phillip.taylor@bakermckenzie.com
Email: mireille.oldak@bakermckenzie.com
Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar &
Scott LLP
By: Philip S. Beck
By: Sean W. Gallagher
By: Brian S. Prestes
By: Robert B. Tannenbaum
Philip S. Beck, Pro Hac Vice
Sean W. Gallagher, Pro Hac Vice
Brian S. Prestes, Pro Hac Vice
Robert B. Tannenbaum, Pro Hac Vice
54 West Hubbard Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: (312) 494-4400
Fax: (312) 494-4440
Email: philip.beck@bartlit-beck.com
Email: sean.gallagher@bartlit-beck.com
Email: brian.prestes@bartlit-beck.com
Email: robert.tannenbaum@bartlit-beck.com
Attorneys for Respondent/
Intervenor Microsoft Corporation
- Case NameUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ET. AL., Respondents.
- CourtUnited States District Court for the Western District of Washington
- DocketNo. 2:15-cv-00102
- Cross-Reference
- Code Sections
- Subject Area/Tax Topics
- Jurisdictions
- LanguageEnglish
- Tax Analysts Document NumberDoc 2016-6191
- Tax Analysts Electronic Citation2016 TNT 57-14