Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04697/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04697-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

CASE NO. C 09-04697-CW (EDL) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES, LTD., a 

Delaware corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

DEVICEVM, Inc., a Delaware corporation, 

and BENEDICT CHONG, an individual, 

Defendants.

Case No. 4:09-cv-04697-CW (EDL) 

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

PROTECTIVE ORDER BASED ON CAL. 

CIV. PROC. CODE § 2019.210 

Complaint filed: July 17, 2009 

Trial Date: None Set

Case 4:09-cv-04697-CW Document 92 Filed 02/19/10 Page 1 of 2 Case4:09-cv-04697-CW Document91 Filed02/18/10 Page1 of 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

1 ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

CASE NO. C 09-04697-CW (EDL) 

Defendants DeviceVM, Inc. and Benedict Chong’s Motion for Protective Order Based on 

California Civil Procedure Code § 2019.210 (the “Motion for Protective Order”) came on for 

hearing on February 16, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable Elizabeth D. Laporte, in the 

above-captioned Court. The Court having considered the papers submitted in support of and 

opposition to the motion, the record in this matter, oral argument by the parties, and for the 

reasons stated at the hearing on the Motion for Protective Order: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Phoenix shall file an expert declaration in support of its Opposition to Defendants’ 

Motion for Protective Order by no later than February 26, 2010; 

2. Defendants shall file any objection to Phoenix’s expert declaration by no later than 

March 3, 2010; 

3. After the Court has considered Phoenix’s expert declaration and Defendants’ 

objections, if any, to the expert declaration, in conjunction with the other papers 

submitted in support of and opposition to the motion, the record in this matter, and 

the parties’ oral argument on February 16, 2010, the Court shall enter its order on 

the Motion for Protective Order; and 

4. If the Motion for Protective Order is denied, Defendants shall begin a rolling 

production of documents in response to Phoenix’s pending requests for the 

production of documents, subject to Defendants’ objections and any agreements by 

the parties concerning the requests, by no later than 14 days after the Court enters 

its order denying the Motion for Protective Order. 

Dated: By:

The Honorable Elizabeth D. Laporte 

United States Magistrate Judge 

MP1:1190094.1

Case4:09-cv-04697-CW Document91 Filed02/18/10 Page2 of 2

based solely on the credibility of the expert, not on the

substance of the expert's opinion

\/

February 18, 2010

Case 4:09-cv-04697-CW Document 92 Filed 02/19/10 Page 2 of 2