Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02090/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02090-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02090-JST

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &28

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

Thomas S. Hixson, Bar No. 193033

thomas.hixson@morganlewis.com

Spencer H. Wan, Bar No. 304329

spencer.wan@morganlewis.com

One Market, Spear Street Tower

San Francisco, CA 94105-1596

Tel: +1.415.442.1000

Fax: +1.415.442.1001

ORACLE CORPORATION

Dorian Daley, Bar No. 129049

dorian.daley@oracle.com

Deborah K. Miller, Bar No. 95527

deborah.miller@oracle.com

500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7

Redwood City, CA 94065

Tel: +1.650.506.4846

Fax: +1.650.506.7114

ORACLE CORPORATION

Jeffrey S. Ross, Bar No. 138172

jeff.ross@oracle.com

10 Van de Graaff Drive

Burlington, MA 01803

Tel: +1.781.744.0449

Fax: +1.781.238.6273

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ORACLE AMERICA, INC. and ORACLE

INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

LANDAU GOTTFRIED & BERGER LLP

PETER M. BRANSTEN (SBN 113352)

pbransten@lgbfirm.com

RACHEL FRANZOIA (SBN 294652)

rfranzoia@lgbfirm.com

1901 Harrison St., Suite 1420

Oakland, California 94612

Telephone: (510) 451-4001

Fax: (310) 557-0056

Attorneys for Defendants BERND

APPLEBY, JAMES OLDING, TUSA

INC., ERMINE IP, INC., AND ERMINE

SERVICES, LLC

HOPKINS & CARLEY

John V. Picone III, SBN 187226

jpicone@hopkinscarley.com

Jennifer S. Coleman, SBN 213210

jcoleman@hopkinscarley.com

Monique D. Jewett-Brewster, SBN 217792

mjb@hopkinscarley.com

A Law Corporation

The Letitia Building

70 S First Street

San Jose, CA 95113-2406

Attorneys for Defendant

TERIX COMPUTER COMPANY, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ORACLE AMERICA, INC., a Delaware

corporation; ORACLE INTERNATIONAL

CORPORATION, a California corporation

Plaintiffs,

v.

BERND APPLEBY; JAMES OLDING;

TERIX COMPUTER COMPANY, INC., a

California corporation; TUSA, INC., a

Delaware corporation; ERMINE IP, INC., a

Delaware corporation; and ERMINE

SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware company; and

DOES 1–50,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02090-JST

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 3:16-cv-02090-JST Document 72 Filed 08/29/16 Page 1 of 12
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02090-JST

1

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

WHEREAS, during the course of this action, the parties and certain non-parties may be

subject to discovery requests and/or proceedings that seek the disclosure of information that the

party or non-party to whom the request is directed considers to be confidential and/or proprietary.

WHEREAS, the parties wish to preserve the confidentiality of such information through

the use of a Protective Order.

IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between

Oracle America, Inc., and Oracle International Corporation (together, “Oracle”); Bernd Appleby

(“Appleby”); James Olding (“Olding”); TERiX Computer Company, Inc. (“Terix”); TUSA, Inc.

(“TUSA”); Ermine IP, Inc. (“Ermine IP”); Ermine Services, LLC (“Ermine Services”), subject to

the approval of the Court, that the following Order shall govern the handling of documents,

depositions, deposition exhibits, interrogatory responses, admissions and any other information or

material produced, given or exchanged by and among the parties and any non-parties to this

litigation (including, without limitation, any non-party that seeks to intervene or to object to any

of the proceedings in the litigation) in connection with discovery in this litigation.

A. Designated Material

1. The parties may designate documents produced, testimony given, or any other

materials exchanged in connection with this action as “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only”

under the terms of this Order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

2. “Confidential” shall mean all documents and testimony, and all information

contained therein, and other information designated as confidential, if such documents or

testimony contain trade secrets, proprietary business information, competitively sensitive

information, or any other non-public business information, the disclosure of which would, in the

good faith judgment of the party designating the material as confidential, be detrimental to the

conduct of that party’s business or the business of any of that party’s customers or clients if the

material becomes public. Information that is already publicly available may not be designated as

“Confidential.”

3. “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” shall mean all documents and testimony, and all

information contained therein, and other information designated as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” if

Case 3:16-cv-02090-JST Document 72 Filed 08/29/16 Page 2 of 12
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02090-JST

2

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

such documents or testimony contain highly sensitive private information, non-public business or

financial information, or software code, the disclosure of which would, in the good faith judgment

of the party designating the material as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” cause serious and irreparable

harm to that party’s business or the business of any of that party’s customers or clients if the

material is disclosed to persons allowed to see Confidential material beyond the persons specified

in Section B.2 below. Documents, testimony, or other material that merely identify or refer to

customers do not, without more, meet the criteria for Attorneys’ Eyes Only. The parties

anticipate that this designation will be used very sparingly. Information that is already publicly

available may not be designated as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only.”

4. “Producing Party” shall mean the parties to this action and any non-parties

producing “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” information in connection with depositions,

document production or otherwise, or the party asserting the confidentiality privilege, as the case

may be.

5. “Receiving Party” shall mean the parties to this action and any non-parties

receiving “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” information in connection with depositions,

document production, or otherwise.

6. The Receiving Party may, at any time, notify the Producing Party that the

Receiving Party does not concur in the designation of a document or other material as

“Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” If the Receiving Party contends that any document or

other material designated as “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” is not entitled to

confidential treatment, the Receiving Party shall give written notice to the party who designated

the material, specifically identifying the challenged material. The designating party, by its

counsel, shall respond in writing within three (3) business days of receipt of the written request

(or within six (6) business days if the designating party is a third party to this litigation), or within

such other period of time as may be designated by order of the Court or agreement of the parties.

If the designating party refuses to remove the “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only”

designation, its written response shall state the reasons for this refusal. If the challenge to the

confidential designation is not resolved after a good faith meet and confer, which should take

Case 3:16-cv-02090-JST Document 72 Filed 08/29/16 Page 3 of 12
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02090-JST

3

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

place within three (3) business days of the designating party’s written response, the party

challenging the designation may move before the Court for an order declassifying those

documents or materials. If such a motion is filed, the designating party shall bear the burden of

proving that the challenged material is entitled to confidential treatment. If no such motion is

filed, such documents or materials shall continue to be treated as designated by the Producing

Party. If such a motion is filed, the documents or other materials shall be deemed as designated

by the Producing Party unless and until the Court rules otherwise.

B. Access to Confidential Information

1. Except with the prior written consent of the Producing Party or by Order of the

Court, “Confidential” information shall not be furnished, shown, or disclosed to any person or

entity except to:

a. Personnel of Oracle, Terix, TUSA, Ermine IP, Ermine Services

involved in the litigation of this matter and who have been advised

of their obligations hereunder;

b. Outside counsel of record for the parties to this action and their

associated attorneys, paralegals, and other professional personnel

(including support staff) who are directly assisting such counsel in

the preparation of this action for trial or other proceedings herein,

are under the supervision or control of such counsel, and who have

been advised by such counsel of their obligations hereunder; inhouse counsel James MacIntyre, General Counsel for TUSA;

Jeffrey Ross, Oracle’s Managing Counsel; Deborah Miller, Oracle’s

Assistant General Counsel for Litigation; Colin Farrell, Oracle

Corporate Counsel; Dorian Daley, Oracle’s General Counsel; and

paralegals and legal department administrative personnel who are

directly assisting such in-house counsel in the preparation of this

action for trial or other proceedings herein, are under the

supervision or control of such counsel, and who have been advised

Case 3:16-cv-02090-JST Document 72 Filed 08/29/16 Page 4 of 12
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02090-JST

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

by such counsel of their obligations hereunder;

c. Expert witnesses or consultants retained by the parties or their

counsel to furnish technical or expert services in connection with

this action or to give testimony with respect to the subject matter of

this action at the trial of this action or other proceeding herein;

provided, however, that such Confidential information is furnished,

shown, or disclosed in accordance with Paragraphs (B)(5) and (6)

below;

d. The Court and court personnel;

e. An officer before whom a deposition is taken, including

stenographic and video reporters and any necessary secretarial,

clerical, or other personnel of such officer;

f. Trial and deposition witnesses;

g. Any person indicated on the face of a document to be the author,

addressee, or a copy recipient of the document;

h. Vendors with whom counsel of record for the parties to this

litigation have contracted for purely clerical functions, such as the

copying of documents;

i. Mock jurors and jury consultants who have been engaged by any

party and/or a party’s consultant in preparation for trial. For any

jury research, an appropriate screening process must be used to

assure that the jury consultant(s) and mock jurors chosen for any

mock jury presentation are not current or former officers, directors,

employees, or consultants of any party or any direct competitors of

any party. Each jury consultant and/or mock jurors must agree in

writing to be bound by this Order by signing and undertaking the

form of Exhibit A to this Order; and

j. Any other person agreed to by the parties.

Case 3:16-cv-02090-JST Document 72 Filed 08/29/16 Page 5 of 12
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02090-JST

5

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

2. Except with the prior written consent of the Producing Party or by Order of the

Court, “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” information shall not be furnished, shown, or disclosed to any

person or entity except to those persons listed above in Paragraph (B)(1) under item (b), item (c)

(subject to Paragraph (B)(5) below), item (d), item (e), item (g), item (h), and item (j). Attorneys’

Eyes Only information may be furnished, shown, or disclosed to any person or entity listed above

under Paragraph (B)(1)(f) if that person or entity is (i) an author, addressee, or a copy recipient of

the document, or (ii) a current or former employee, officer, or director of the Producing Party.

For any person or entity under Paragraph (B)(1)(f) that is not within the scope of the preceding

sentence, Attorneys’ Eyes Only information may be furnished, shown, or disclosed to such person

or entity only (i) with the prior written consent of the Producing Party or by Court Order, and (ii)

after the person or entity has signed Exhibit A attached hereto and agreed to comply with and be

bound by its terms.

3. Confidential and Attorneys’ Eyes Only information shall be utilized by the

Receiving Party and/or its counsel, as applicable, only for purposes of this litigation (including,

for example, communications with third parties related to the service of and/or responses to

subpoenas) and for no other purposes, unless the Receiving Party independently learned of the

Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only information. The parties acknowledge that each party

respectively may have developed information regarding certain customers independent of any

disclosure or production in the litigation. The parties also acknowledge that the salespeople for

the respective parties may communicate with customers and potential customers in the ordinary

course of their jobs, and that such communications do not, alone, reflect the use of protected

information.

5. Before any disclosure of Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only information is

made to an expert witness or consultant pursuant to Paragraph (B)(1)(c) above, counsel for the

Receiving Party shall obtain from the expert, the expert’s written agreement, in the form of

Exhibit A attached hereto, to comply with and be bound by its terms. Confidential or Attorneys’

Eyes Only information may be provided to an expert witness or consultant to the extent necessary

for such expert or consultant to prepare a written opinion, to prepare to testify, or to assist counsel

Case 3:16-cv-02090-JST Document 72 Filed 08/29/16 Page 6 of 12
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02090-JST

6

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

in the prosecution or defense of this litigation, provided that such expert or consultant (i) is not

currently an employee of, or advising or discussing employment with, or consultant to, any party

to or any competitor of any party to this litigation, as far as the expert or consultant can

reasonably determine, and (ii) is using said Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only information

solely in connection with this litigation. Where an expert witness or consultant has employees at

the same firm or company working at the direction of the expert witness or consultant, only the

expert witness or consultant (and not the other employees) need sign Exhibit A. However, the

employees shall also be bound by the confidentiality obligations in this Order to the same extent

the expert witness or consultant is.

6. At least five (5) business days prior to providing an expert or expert consultant

with any information that has been designated as “Confidential Information” or “Attorneys’ Eyes

Only” by a Producing Party, counsel must first identify the expert in writing to opposing counsel.

This written identification shall include a current resume or curriculum vitae. Should the

opposing Party or any non-party object to the disclosure of its “Confidential Information” or

“Attorneys’ Eyes Only” to the designated expert or expert consultant, it shall provide written

notice within five (5) business days. The objecting Party or non-party shall meet and confer with

the Party identifying the expert on that objection within two (2) business days of the written

objection being served on counsel. If the meet and confer does not resolve the dispute, the parties

agree to expedite the filing of a joint letter with the Court. The Parties agree that this joint

statement will be filed with the Court within two (2) business days of the meet and confer.

C. Designation Of Materials

The designation of materials as “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” for purposes of

this Order shall be made in the following manner by any Producing Party:

1. In the case of documents or other materials (apart from depositions or other

pretrial testimony), by affixing the legend “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” to each page

containing any Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only information, except that in the case of multipage documents bound together by a staple or other permanent binding, the word(s)

“Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” need only be stamped on the first page of the document

Case 3:16-cv-02090-JST Document 72 Filed 08/29/16 Page 7 of 12
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02090-JST

7

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

in order for the entire document to be treated as Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only; provided

that the failure to designate a document as “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” does not

constitute a waiver of such claim, and a Producing Party may so designate a document after such

document has been produced, with the effect that such document is thereafter subject to the

protections of this Order. For native documents (such as Excel files) or software code, the

Producing Party will endorse the designation on a slipsheet in the production.

2. In the case of depositions or other pretrial testimony, by written notice, sent to all

parties within ten (10) business days after receiving a copy of the transcript thereof, and by

directing the court reporter that the appropriate confidentiality legend be affixed to the first page

and all portions of the original and all copies of the transcript containing any Confidential or

Attorneys’ Eyes Only material. Unless otherwise stated on the record, all depositions and other

pretrial testimony shall be deemed to be “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” until the expiration of the tenth

business day after counsel receives a copy of the transcript thereof, after which time such

deposition or pretrial testimony shall be treated in accordance with its designation, if any. The

parties may modify this procedure for any particular deposition, through agreement on the record

at such deposition, without further order of the Court.

D. Inadvertent Production Of Privileged Materials

1. If information subject to a claim of attorney-client privilege, attorney work

product, or any other ground on which production of such information should not be made to any

party is nevertheless inadvertently produced to a party or parties, Federal Rule of Evidence 502(b)

and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) shall apply.

2. The failure of a party at a deposition to challenge the assertion of any privilege,

work-product protection, or immunity over any document shall not prejudice the right of such

party to challenge the assertion of any such privilege or immunity in accordance with the other

procedures described in this paragraph.

E. Other Items

1. If any party intends to file with the Court materials that have been designated as

Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only, the filing party must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5.

Case 3:16-cv-02090-JST Document 72 Filed 08/29/16 Page 8 of 12
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02090-JST

8

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

Prior to any dispositive motion hearings and/or trial in this matter, counsel for the parties shall

meet and confer to negotiate a proposal regarding the treatment of Confidential or Attorneys’

Eyes Only information proposed to be used at such hearing or trial. Ultimately, the determination

of treatment of Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only information at such hearing or trial will be

determined by the Court.

2. All discovery material produced in Oracle America, Inc., et al. v. Terix Computer

Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03385 JST (the “Terix action”) – including documents,

written discovery, depositions and expert reports – by Oracle, Terix, West Coast Computer

Exchange, Inc., and Sevanna Financial, Inc. is deemed produced for the purposes of this action.

The confidentiality designations (and any redesignations) that were made to such discovery

material pursuant to the Protective Order in the Terix action are deemed made under this Order,

except that any discovery material that has been filed in the public record (i.e., not under seal) is

no longer considered Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only. The rule that “[a]t a hearing or trial,

all of part of a deposition may be used against a party on” the condition that “the party was

present or represented at the taking of the deposition or had reasonable notice of it” (Fed. R. Civ.

Proc. 32(a)(1)(A)) shall have no application to depositions taken in the Terix action, which may

be used against the parties in this action notwithstanding their absence or lack of representation at

the deposition or lack of reasonable notice of it.

3. The parties to this action agree that the production of any discovery material by

any non-party shall be subject to and governed by the terms of this Order.

4. The parties and any other persons subject to the terms of this Order agree that the

Court shall retain jurisdiction over them for the purpose of enforcing this Order.

5. Within thirty (30) days of termination of this litigation, any appeal, or the

expiration of the right to appeal, all originals and copies of any Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes

Only information shall either be destroyed or returned to the Producing Party.

6. Nothing in this Order shall prevent any party or other person from seeking

modification of this Order or from objecting to discovery that it believes to be otherwise

improper.

Case 3:16-cv-02090-JST Document 72 Filed 08/29/16 Page 9 of 12
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02090-JST

9

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD:

Dated: August 23, 2016 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

By: /s/ Thomas S. Hixson

Thomas S. Hixson

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Oracle America, Inc. and

Oracle International Corporation.

Dated: August 23, 2016 Landau Gottfried & Berger LLP

By: /s/ Peter Bransten

Peter Bransten

Attorneys for Defendants

Bernd Appleby, James Olding, TUSA Inc.,

Ermine IP, Inc.,

And Ermine Services, LLC

Dated: August 23, 2016 Hopkins & Carley

By: /s/ Monique D. Jewett-Brewster

Monique D. Jewett-Brewster

Attorneys for Defendant

Terix Computer Company, Inc.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: August 29 , 2016 By:

The Honorable Jon S. Tigar

United States District Court Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

 Judge Jon S. Tigar 

Case 3:16-cv-02090-JST Document 72 Filed 08/29/16 Page 10 of 12
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02090-JST

10

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

ATTESTATION

I, Thomas S. Hixson, am counsel for Oracle America, Inc. and Oracle International

Corporation. I am the registered ECF user whose username and password are being used to file

this STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. In compliance with LR 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest

that the above-identified counsel concurred in this filing.

Dated: August 23, 2016 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

By: /s/ Thomas S. Hixson

Thomas S. Hixson

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Oracle America, Inc. and

Oracle International Corporation

Case 3:16-cv-02090-JST Document 72 Filed 08/29/16 Page 11 of 12
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02090-JST

11

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

DB2/ 30427627.1

EXHIBIT A

I have been given a copy of the Stipulated Protective Order entered in the actions

titled Oracle America, Inc., et al. v. Bernd Appleby, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-02090-

JST, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. I have

read and understand the terms of the Order. I understand that unauthorized disclosure of

“Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” information will constitute a violation of the Order

and that the parties reserve the right to seek appropriate redress, including sanctions, from the

Court for willful violations thereof. With full knowledge of the terms and requirements of the

Order, I agree to be bound by its terms. I agree that I shall not disclose to others, except in

accordance with the Order, such information or documents, and that such information or

documents shall be used only for the purpose of the legal proceeding in which the documents

were produced. I further agree and attest to my understanding that my obligation to honor the

confidentiality of such information or documents will continue even after the termination of this

legal proceeding.

I agree to subject myself to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for

the Northern District of California for the purposes of enforcement of this Order.

Dated: _______________ By: __________________________

Case 3:16-cv-02090-JST Document 72 Filed 08/29/16 Page 12 of 12