Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-02889/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-02889-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

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

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

20336-1273/LEGAL17373013.4 5:09-CV-02889-JW (PVT) 

RAOUL D. KENNEDY (CA Bar No. 40892) 

JAMES P. SCHAEFER (CA Bar No. 250417) 

JOAN E. SHREFFLER (CA Bar No. 245629) 

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 

Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3800 

San Francisco, California 94111-4144 

Telephone: (415) 984-6400 

Facsimile: (415) 984-2698 

Email: rkennedy@skadden.com; jshreffler@skadden.com; 

jschaefer@skadden.com

JOSEPH E. MAIS (CA Bar No. 103756) 

ANTHONY L. MARKS (AZ Bar No. 012258) 

TIMOTHY J. FRANKS (CA Bar No. 197645) 

DAN L. BAGATELL (CA Bar No. 218879) 

PERKINS COIE BROWN & BAIN P.A. 

2901 North Central Avenue 

Post Office Box 400 

Phoenix, AZ 85001-0400 

Telephone: (602) 351-8000 

Facsimile: (602) 648-7000 

Email: jmais@perkinscoie.com; amarks@perkinscoie.com; 

tfranks@perkinscoie.com; dbagatell@perkinscoie.com 

PHILIP A. LEIDER (CA Bar No. 229751) 

PERKINS COIE LLP 

Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400 

San Francisco, California 94111-4131 

Telephone: (415) 344-7000 

Facsimile: (415) 344-7050 

Email: pleider@perkinscoie.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

INTEL CORPORATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

IN RE INTEL LAPTOP BATTERY 

LITIGATION

CASE NO. 5:09-cv-02889-JW (PVT) 

STIPULATION AND ORDER

REGARDING THE PRODUCTION

OF DOCUMENTS 

Case 5:09-cv-02889-JW Document 76 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 4
1

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

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

20336-1273/LEGAL17373013.4 -2- 5:09-cv-02889-JW (PVT) 

WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed upon a protocol for production of Intel Corporation's 

documents to plaintiffs that will consist of (1) the production from five Intel custodians of all 

non-privileged documents dated prior to June 25, 2009, that contain one or more agreed search 

terms, and (2) the production of non-privileged materials from the Skold v. Intel and Barbara's

Sales v. Intel cases, and (3) the production of non-privileged documents dated prior to June 25, 

2009, that are in the possession, custody or control of the Business Application Performance Co. 

("BAPCo") and that contain one or more agreed search terms ("First Production Materials"); 

WHEREAS, the First Production Materials are voluminous, and the Parties are anxious to 

produce those materials to plaintiffs' counsel as quickly as possible to meet the current case 

management schedule; 

WHEREAS, Intel and BAPCo have taken measures they believe are reasonable in the 

circumstances to identify privileged materials within the First Production Materials;

WHEREAS, in producing the First Production Materials, the Parties do not intend for 

Intel or BAPCo to waive their right to assert the attorney-client privilege, work product 

immunity, or any other applicable privilege or immunity as to any documents produced; 

WHEREAS, the Parties seek to create a mechanism to provide for the return of documents 

protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work product immunity, or any other 

applicable privilege or immunity should Intel or BAPCo inadvertently or unintentionally disclose 

any such documents in the First Production Materials; 

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate as follows: 

1. Intel and BAPCo do not waive, and are not estopped from asserting, the attorneyclient privilege, work product immunity, or any other applicable privilege or immunity by 

producing documents or things, or making them available for inspection, in the First Production 

Materials. If the Producing Party becomes aware of any inadvertent or unintentional disclosure, it 

may designate such documents as within the attorney-client privilege, work product immunity or 

any other applicable privilege or immunity, and request in writing return of such documents to the 

Producing Party. Upon request by the Producing Party, the Receiving Party shall (a) refrain from 

any further examination or disclosure of such document(s); (b) immediately retrieve and return all 

Case 5:09-cv-02889-JW Document 76 Filed 04/15/10 Page 2 of 4
1

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

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

20336-1273/LEGAL17373013.4 -3- 5:09-cv-02889-JW (PVT) 

copies of such document(s) (including summaries and excerpts) to counsel for the Producing 

Party; and (c) not use such document(s) for any purpose until further order of the Court. The 

Producing Party must retain a copy of any document(s) that are returned until any disputes 

concerning such documents have been resolved. 

2. If a Receiving Party reasonably believes that a Producing Party has inadvertently 

produced any documents, data or information that is potentially privileged, the Receiving Party 

shall (a) refrain from any further examination or disclosure of such material; (b) promptly notify 

the Producing Party and specifically identify the information (by document number or other 

equally precise description); and (c) give the Producing Party ten (10) days to respond as to 

whether the material was, in fact, inadvertently produced. If the Producing Party makes a claim 

of inadvertent production, the provisions of paragraph (1) above shall apply.

3. Nothing herein shall prevent the Receiving Party from challenging the propriety of 

the attorney-client privilege, work product immunity, or other applicable privilege or immunity 

designation by filing a written motion filed under seal with the Court; provided, however, that 

such challenge shall not assert as a ground for challenge the fact of the initial production or 

inspection of the documents later designated as attorney-client privileged, work product, or 

subject to another applicable privilege or immunity. 

4. Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(e), this agreement is binding on third-parties, 

provided that it has been entered by the Court. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

DATED: April 14, 2010 GIRARD GIBBS LLP 

By: /s/ Geoffrey A. Munroe 

Geoffrey A. Munroe 

Interim Class Counsel for Plaintiffs 

Case 5:09-cv-02889-JW Document 76 Filed 04/15/10 Page 3 of 4
1

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

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

20336-1273/LEGAL17373013.4 -4- 5:09-cv-02889-JW (PVT) 

DATED: April 14, 2010 PERKINS COIE BROWN & BAIN P.A. 

By: /s/ Timothy J. Franks 

Timothy J. Franks 

Attorneys for Defendant 

INTEL CORPORATION 

DATED: April 14, 2010 NARANCIC & KATZMAN, PC 

By: /s/ Perry J. Narancic 

Perry J. Narancic 

Attorneys for Defendant 

BUSINESS APPLICATIONS 

PERFORMANCE CORPORATION 

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 15, 2010 ____________________________________ The Honorable Patricia V. Trumbull 

United States Magistrate 

Case 5:09-cv-02889-JW Document 76 Filed 04/15/10 Page 4 of 4