Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01958/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01958-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

05cv1958-B (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,

v.

BROADCOM CORPORATION,

Defendant. 

BROADCOM CORPORATION,

Counterclaimant,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Counterdefendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05cv1958-B (BLM)

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

Doc. Nos. 792, 799, 804, 805,

and 809

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 861 Filed 11/07/08 Page 1 of 14
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

-2- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

Presently before the Court are: (1) Broadcom’s Motion to Compel

Production of Documents [Doc. No. 792], (2) Responding Attorneys

Batchelder, Mammen and Leung’s (“BML”) Motion to Compel Qualcomm to

Produce Documents [Doc. No. 799], (3) Motion to Compel Responses to

Stanley Young’s Request for Production of Documents to Qualcomm [Doc.

No. 804], (4) Responding Attorney Lee Patch’s Motion to Compel

Production of Documents by Qualcomm [Doc. No. 805], and (5) Qualcomm’s

Motion for Protective Order [Doc. No. 809]. Briefing on these motions

was stayed pending the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit’s decision on Qualcomm’s appeal and the related cross-appeals.

See Doc. No. 812. Following that Court’s dismissal of the appeal, this

Court issued a briefing schedule. Doc. No. 835. Pursuant to that

schedule, the parties filed oppositions on October 3, 2008 [Doc. Nos.

838-843], and replies on October 10, 2008 [Doc. Nos. 849-850, 852-854].

The Court heard oral argument on the motions on October 29, 2008 at 2:00

p.m.

BACKGROUND

The current proceedings stem from Broadcom’s oral motion for

sanctions during the trial of this case. During trial, Broadcom made

an oral motion for sanctions when, contrary to Qualcomm’s prior

discovery responses and the testimony of its employees, it became

apparent from documents disclosed during trial that Qualcomm had, in

fact, participated in the Joint Video Team (“JVT”). Judge Brewster

referred the discovery aspects of Broadcom’s motion to this Court.

Judge Brewster then issued his August 6, 2007 Order on Remedy for

Finding of Waiver in which he found that Qualcomm’s “counsel

participated in an organized program of litigation misconduct and

concealment throughout discovery, trial, and post-trial before new

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 861 Filed 11/07/08 Page 2 of 14
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

-3- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

counsel took over lead role in the case on April 27, 2007.” Doc. No.

593 at 32. He further determined that:

Qualcommm counsel’s discovery responses demonstrate that

they were able to locate with alacrity company records from

December 2003 forward and find four or more Qualcomm

employees participating in proceedings of the [Joint Video

Team (“JVT”)]. Yet inexplicably, they were unable to find

over 200,000 pages of relevant emails, memoranda, and other

company documents, hundreds of pages of which explicitly

document massive participation in JVT proceedings since at

least January 2002. These examples of Qualcomm counsel’s

indefensible discovery conduct belie counsel’s later implied

protestation of having been “kept in the dark” by their

client.

Id. at 38. In light of the fact that Qualcomm’s attorneys had neither

notice nor an opportunity to be heard before their litigation conduct

was impugned by the August 6, 2007 order, and in order to afford

Qualcomm’s attorneys an adequate opportunity to be heard on the

potential imposition of attorney sanctions, this Court issued an Order

to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not be Imposed (“OSC”). Doc. No.

599. 

Following briefing and hearings on the sanctions issue, the Court

denied the Qualcomm attorneys’ motion for an order finding that the

federal common-law self-defense exception to the attorney-client

privilege applied. Doc. No. 669. On October 3, 2007, Qualcomm filed

the declarations of four of its employees, all of which pointed at

Qualcomm’s outside counsel as being to blame for the massive discovery

failure that occurred in this case. Doc. Nos. 681, 683-684, 688. The

following week, the Court heard oral argument on the OSC. 

On January 7, 2008, the Court issued an Order Granting in Part and

Denying in Part Broadcom’s Oral Motion for Sanctions. Doc. No. 718

(“Sanctions Order”). Therein, the Court explained why it found

sanctions appropriate for Qualcomm and six of its outside attorneys.

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 861 Filed 11/07/08 Page 3 of 14
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

1 For purposes of this Order, the term “Responding Attorneys” refers to James

Batchelder, Christian Mammen, Kevin Leung, Lee Patch, and Stanley Young.

-4- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

Id. The sanctioned attorneys filed objections with Judge Brewster.

Doc. Nos. 720-723.

By order dated March 5, 2008, Judge Brewster determined that the

four declarations filed by Qualcomm on October 3, 2007 “introduced

accusatory adversity between Qualcomm and its retained counsel regarding

the issue of assessing responsibility for the failure of discovery.”

Doc. No. 744 at 5 (“Remand Order”). Because he found that “this

accusatory adversity changed the factual basis which supported [this]

court’s earlier order denying the self-defense exception to Qualcomm’s

attorney-client privilege,” Judge Brewster vacated this Court’s January

7, 2008 Sanctions Order as to the six attorneys who objected and

remanded the case to this Court for further proceedings not inconsistent

with his order. Id. at 2, 5-6. 

Five of the six attorneys, hereinafter referred to as the

Responding Attorneys1, and Broadcom served document requests on Qualcomm

and each other as part of the Remand Proceedings. This order addresses

motions arising from disputes over the scope of the requested discovery.

LEGAL STANDARD

The scope of discovery is defined by Rule 26(b) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits litigants to obtain discovery

regarding “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s

claim or defense . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information

need not be admissible at trial in order to be discoverable so long as

it is “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.” Id. District courts enjoy broad discretion both to

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 861 Filed 11/07/08 Page 4 of 14
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

-5- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

determine relevancy for discovery purposes, see Hallett v. Morgan, 296

F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002), and to limit discovery to prevent its

abuse, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). 

A motion to compel is appropriate when a party fails to produce

relevant documents requested pursuant to Rule 34. Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(a)(3)(B). An evasive or incomplete answer or response to a discovery

request is to be “treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). A motion to compel must include certification

that the movant has “in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with

the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37(a)(1). 

Rule 26(c) allows a party from whom discovery is sought to move for

a protective order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). In ruling on such a

motion, 

The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a

party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or

undue burden or expense, including one or more of the

following:

(A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery;

(B) specifying terms, including time and place, for the

disclosure or discovery;

(C) prescribing a discovery method other than the

one selected by the party seeking discovery;

(D) forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting

the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters;

...

Id. Rule 26(c) “was enacted as a safeguard for the protection of

parties and witnesses in view of the broad discovery rights authorized

in Rule 26(b).” U.S. v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc., 666 F.2d 364,

368-69 (9th Cir. 1982). “District courts need not condone the use of

discovery to engage in ‘fishing expedition[s].’” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc.,

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 861 Filed 11/07/08 Page 5 of 14
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 2 This language is quoted from Judge Brewster’s Remand Order.

-6- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

364 F.3d 1057, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004).

DISCUSSION

Broadcom and each of the Responding Attorneys filed motions to

compel production of documents by Qualcomm. The Responding Attorneys

generally seek documents that will support their contention that

Qualcomm affirmatively mislead the Responding Attorneys, that in light

of the totality of the circumstances and Qualcomm’s statements and

assurances, there were no “red flags,” and that the Responding Attorneys

made reasonable inquiries. Broadcom seeks to compel responses to

similar document requests. 

In response to the Responding Attorneys and Broadcom’s requests,

Qualcomm objected to most of the requests on the grounds they (1) were

not limited to “records discovery,” (2) sought documents unrelated to

“JVT and its parents, its ad-hoc committees, and any other topic

regarding the standards-setting process for video compression

technology,”2

 and (3) sought non-contemporaneous documents created

before and after trial. Qualcomm further objected that some of the

requests sought documents reflecting privileged communications between

Qualcomm and DLA Piper LLP and/or Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP - both

firms that took over representation of Qualcomm after the trial

concluded. 

In its motion for a protective order, Qualcomm raises the same

concerns listed above about the scope of the documents requested. It

also seeks an order specifying that only a limited list of individuals

will be entitled to view the documents produced during these Remand

Proceedings and that all filings and arguments will be sealed. Finally,

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 861 Filed 11/07/08 Page 6 of 14
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

-7- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

Qualcomm asks the Court to clarify that any documents produced during

these Remand Proceedings are being produced pursuant to the self-defense

exception and not as a result of any waiver on the part of Qualcomm. 

The Responding Attorneys and Broadcom object to these restrictions,

arguing that Qualcomm’s limitations as to scope are not supported by

Judge Brewster’s Remand Order or the Court’s findings to date.

Additionally, they argue that the relevant case law does not support

Qualcomm’s distinction between application of the self-defense exception

to the attorney-client privilege and waiver of the attorney-client

privilege. BML believe that Qualcomm’s decision to file the four

employee declarations effected a waiver of its privilege and that BML

now should be allowed to publicly file privileged documents necessary

to vindicate themselves before this Court and the California State Bar.

A. General Scope of the Requests

The purpose of these Remand Proceedings is to afford the Responding

Attorneys their due process right to defend themselves and this Court,

therefore, rejects Qualcomm’s artificial narrowing of the scope of these

proceedings. As Judge Brewster instructed, the Responding Attorneys

“have a due process right to defend themselves under the totality of the

circumstances presented in this sanctions hearing where their alleged

conduct regarding discovery is in conflict with that alleged by Qualcomm

concerning performance of discovery responsibilities.” Remand Order at

5 (emphasis added). To accept the limitations suggested by Qualcomm

would frustrate the fundamental purpose of applying the self-defense

exception to the attorney-client privilege — to allow the lawyer access

to privileged material the lawyer believes is reasonably necessary to

vindicate himself. In re Nat’l Mortgage Equity Corp. Mortgage Pool

Certificates Sec. Litig., 120 F.R.D. 687, 692 (C.D. Cal. 1998). 

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 861 Filed 11/07/08 Page 7 of 14
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

-8- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

Furthermore, this Court’s Sanctions Order focused on the lawyers’

affirmative duty to engage in discovery in a responsible manner and to

conduct a “reasonable inquiry” to determine whether discovery responses

were sufficient and proper. See, e.g., Sanctions Order at 14, 26 n.9,

27 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Advisory

Committee Notes (1983 Amendment)). In order for the Responding

Attorneys to present evidence that they did conduct a “reasonable

inquiry” before serving discovery responses and documents on Broadcom,

the attorneys must be allowed access to discovery demonstrating what

inquiries they made to Qualcomm and what responses and assurances were

given by Qualcomm. For his part, Mr. Young also seeks discovery showing

what information was and was not available to him and why his reliance

on work and representations made by Qualcomm and Day Casebeer was

reasonable. Contrary to Qualcomm’s view, the discovery reasonably

necessary to address these issues is broader than just “records

discovery” because, for example, communications the Responding Attorneys

had with Qualcomm that were unrelated to “records discovery” may well

have impacted the Responding Attorneys’ decisions about how to conduct

records discovery.

The Court was guided by these principles in reviewing the

reasonableness of the document requests and subpoenas issued in this

case. Generally, the Court finds that the Responding Attorneys’ and

Broadcom’s document requests are reasonable and that the requested

documents are relevant to the instant dispute and the Responding

Attorneys’ ability to defend themselves. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).

At the very least, the requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Id. However, the Court concludes

that the appropriate time frame applicable to the requests should be

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 861 Filed 11/07/08 Page 8 of 14
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

-9- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

from July 1, 2005, a date a few months prior to Qualcomm’s filing of its

lawsuit against Broadcom when the parties anticipate that Qualcomm began

its pre-filing investigation, to August 7, 2007, the final day on which

Qualcomm produced documents to Broadcom in the underlying action.

Responsive documents within this time frame must be produced unless they

involved privileged communications exclusively between Qualcomm and DLA

Piper LLP and/or Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.

B. Requests to Which Qualcomm Raised Specific Objections

During the hearing, Qualcomm voiced specific objections to several

of BML and Broadcom’s requests. The Court addresses each specific

objection in turn.

Qualcomm first objects that BML Request Nos. 4 and 5 are overbroad

to the extent they are not limited to communications related to

defending this litigation. These requests are as follows:

BML Request No. 4: All communications between or among

Qualcomm personnel (including but not limited to Qualcomm’s

in-house legal staff), or between Qualcomm personnel and

outside counsel in the litigation, that were written at any

time between July 1, 2005 and January 31, 2007, and that

evidence Qualcomm’s efforts to determine whether and to what

it [sic] extent Qualcomm participated in the JVT. 

BML Request No. 5: All communications between or among

Qualcomm personnel (including but not limited to Qualcomm’s

in-house legal staff), or between Qualcomm personnel and

outside counsel in the litigation, that were written at any

time between July 1, 2005 and January 31, 2007, and that

evidence Qualcomm’s efforts to determine whether and to what

it [sic] extent Qualcomm was aware of the development of the

H.264 standard during the period that standard was under

development (i.e., December 2001 through May 2003). 

Decl. of Timothy S. Blackford Supp. Qualcomm Inc.’s Mot. for Protective

Order (“Blackford Decl.”), Ex. A at 5-6. The Court OVERRULES Qualcomm’s

objection on the grounds that what Qualcomm knew, or attempted to learn,

about its involvement in the JVT or awareness of the development of the

H.264 standard during the time period in question is relevant to showing

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 861 Filed 11/07/08 Page 9 of 14
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

-10- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

whether Qualcomm affirmatively mislead the Responding Attorneys and

whether the discovery conduct of the Responding Attorneys was reasonable

under the totality of the circumstances. 

Qualcomm next objects to BML Request No. 19, which seeks:

BML Request No. 19: All documents concerning Qualcomm’s

evaluation and modification of procedures, policies, or

preferred practices for searching for documents and

information in connection with litigation matters that took

place after the trial of the litigation, including but not

limited to internal communications and communications with

attorneys from Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder LLP and about

the evaluation and modifications of such procedures,

policies, or preferred practices. 

Id., Ex. A at 9. Qualcomm objects to the extent this request solicits

documents that describe or reference Qualcomm’s discovery procedures in

litigation unrelated to the instant case. In response to Qualcomm’s

objection, BML explained that they used the term “litigation matters”

so that the request would encompass any generic or non-case specific

documents concerning Qualcomm’s procedures, policies, or preferred

practices for searching for documents and information. Having

considered the parties’ arguments, the Court SUSTAINS Qualcomm’s

objection to the extent it seeks to exclude from production documents

pertaining specifically to other litigation. 

Finally, Qualcomm objects to Broadcom Request Nos. 119 and 120,

which seek:

Broadcom Request No. 119: All documents relating to

identification and preparation of Qualcomm’s Rule 30(b)(6)

witnesses concerning the H.264 standard and Qualcomm’s

participation in the JVT, ISO, IEC, and ITU-T, including

without limitation documents constituting, referring to, or

evidencing communications between or among any of Qualcomm,

its employees, its Outside Counsel, and its agents regarding

such search, collection, and/or production.

Broadcom Request No. 120: All documents relating to

identification and preparation of Qualcomm’s deposition and

trial witnesses concerning the H.264 standard and Qualcomm’s

participation in the JVT, ISO, IEC, and ITU-T, including

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 861 Filed 11/07/08 Page 10 of 14
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

3 This list is composed of those individuals and entities proposed by

Qualcomm in its Motion for Protective Order [Doc. No. 809] and agreed upon by all

parties during the October 29, 2008 hearing.

-11- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

without limitation documents constituting, referring to, or

evidencing communications between or among any of Qualcomm,

its employees, its Outside Counsel, and its agents regarding

such search, collection, and/or production. 

Id., Ex. G at 39. Qualcomm objects to the scope of these requests on

the grounds that they are overbroad and may require production of

privileged documents not related to the scope of the instant dispute.

However, Qualcomm acknowledged during the hearing that it did not know

whether there were such privileged and responsive documents. The Court

OVERRULES Qualcomm’s objection WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Qualcomm must produce

responsive documents in accordance with the provisions of this Order.

C. Protective Order

The Court recognizes that the nature of the current dispute, the

nature of the requested documents, and the existence of other pending

litigation between Qualcomm and Broadcom do place Qualcomm in a

vulnerable position. Accordingly, the Court acknowledges the need to

enter an appropriate protective order to prevent public disclosure of

the documents produced during this stage of discovery, to limit the

recipients of the documents Qualcomm discloses, and to restrict the use

of the produced documents. To that end, the Court orders as follows:

1. Responsive documents produced pursuant to the selfdefense exception and this Order may be disclosed to the

following persons3 only:

a. The attorneys of record in the Remand Proceedings

for Qualcomm, Broadcom and the Responding

Attorneys, as well as any attorneys who have

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 861 Filed 11/07/08 Page 11 of 14
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

-12- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

represented or are representing the Responding

Attorneys in proceedings directly related to the

Remand Proceedings;

b. The Responding Attorneys;

c. In-house counsel at Broadcom working directly on

this matter;

d. Former Heller Ehrman LLP attorneys who were

involved in this case during the time frame set

forth above or to whom Mr. Young’s counsel is

required to report regarding the status of the

Remand Proceedings;

e. Outside counsel for Day Casebeer Madrid &

Batchelder LLP (“Day Casebeer”) and current Day

Casebeer attorneys who were involved in this case

during the time frame set forth above;

f. All agents, consultants, experts retained or

consulted by the Responding Attorneys, and/or

insurance company representatives who are providing

coverage to the Responding Attorneys;

g. The district judge and magistrate judge assigned to

this case and their respective staffs;

i. Any certified shorthand reporters or stenographers

retained to create a formal record of the Remand

Proceedings; and,

g. Such other persons as may be designated by written

agreement or by Court order.

2. Documents produced during the Remand Proceedings only

may be used in the instant litigation and by the

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 861 Filed 11/07/08 Page 12 of 14
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

-13- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

Responding Attorneys to defend themselves in related

litigation, including proceedings before the California

State Bar. The produced documents shall not be used by

any party or person for any other purpose, unless such

use is authorized by subsequent order of this Court.

3. Any disclosure or production of documents during these

Remand Proceedings is made pursuant to this Court’s

Order and the self-defense exception to the attorneyclient privilege and shall not be viewed as a consent or

waiver of any privilege or work product immunity on the

part of Qualcomm.

4. This protective order covers all requests, subpoenas and

other discovery propounded by or responded to by any

party to the Remand Proceedings. 

Once all responsive documents have been produced and reviewed, the

Responding Attorneys will determine the documents and information they

believe are reasonably necessary to their defense. The parties shall

then meet and confer regarding what may be filed in the public record

pursuant to the self-defense exception and/or an implied waiver based

upon Qualcomm’s conduct. If necessary, the Court will issue a briefing

schedule to address any issues on which the parties cannot agree.

D. Scheduling

During the hearing, the Court discussed with counsel how best to

initiate the meet and confer process regarding document custodians and

which search terms to use. The parties agreed that it made sense for

Qualcomm to provide BML and Broadcom with a list of custodians likely

to have documents responsive to each request and then for the parties

to meet and confer regarding search terms. Qualcomm agreed to provide

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 861 Filed 11/07/08 Page 13 of 14
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

4 In order to avoid undue burden and expense, and potential duplication of

discovery efforts, the parties shall complete their respective document productions and

review before beginning deposition discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) & 26(c).

If the parties are unable to agree upon a schedule for depositions, the Court will

issue a scheduling order. 

-14- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

a list of custodians to opposing counsel by October 31, 2008. 

Qualcomm also agreed to provide responsive documents in an

electronic, searchable format. The Court orders it to do so and further

orders the parties to immediately begin producing responsive documents.4

In order to monitor the parties’ compliance with this Court’s order

to produce documents, and to discuss with counsel appropriate deadlines

and scheduling, the Court hereby sets a telephonic, attorneys-only Case

Management Conference for December 4, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. Qualcomm is

directed to make arrangements to initiate the call. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, all of the pending motions [Doc. Nos.

792, 799, 804, 805, 809] are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The

parties shall immediately begin producing responsive documents pursuant

to the limitations set forth in this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 7, 2008

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO:

HONORABLE RUDI M. BREWSTER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 861 Filed 11/07/08 Page 14 of 14