Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01090/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01090-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 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 

 - 1 - 

17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AMERICAN GNC CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

LG ELECTRONICS INC., LG ELECTRONICS 

MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC., AND LG 

ELECTRONICS MOBILE RESEARCH U.S.A., 

LLC, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM 

ORDER ON DISPUTED JOINT 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 

[ECF NO. 47] 

On October 5, 2017, the parties filed a “JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A 

PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT.” ECF No. 47 (“Mot.”). While 

the parties are in agreement over much of the language to be used in the protective order, 

the motion highlights several areas of disagreement concerning the definition of source 

code, the amount of expert information required, access to “CONFIDENTIAL” information, 

source code protection, a patent prosecution bar, an acquisition bar, and a separate 

agreement for trial. Id. The Court has reviewed and considered the motion and exhibits. 

For many of the disputes, the Court has selected the proposed language of one of the 

parties. The more significant issues are discussed below. 

/// 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 24
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 - 

17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM

PROSECUTION BAR 

Defendants propose that the protective order include a prosecution bar. 

Defendants argue that a prosecution bar is appropriate here because the information to 

be exchanged is highly confidential and relates to proprietary information about 

“proprietary and confidential technology.” Mot. at 38. Defendants also argue that since 

Plaintiff has accepted a protective order with a prosecution bar in another case in the 

Eastern District of Texas, it should be willing to accept a prosecution bar in the instant 

matter. Id. Defendants note that they are willing to meet and confer on the appropriate 

scope of the bar, but allege that Plaintiff is unwilling to participate. Id. at 38-39. 

Defendants further note that the prosecution bar in the Texas case would not offer them 

any protection if that case were to conclude before the instant matter. Id. at 39. 

Plaintiff contends that a one way prosecution bar permitting Defendants’ counsel 

to participate in IPRs, but preventing Plaintiff’s counsel from doing the same should not 

be allowed. Id. at 38. Plaintiff notes that there is no prosecution bar in the model 

protective order for the Southern District of California and contends that Defendants have 

failed to demonstrate why this case merits a prosecution bar. Id. at 42. Plaintiff notes 

that it is not required to agree to a prosecution bar in the instant matter because it has 

agreed to one in the Texas litigation and that the scope of the prosecution bar in the 

Texas litigation is totally different than the scope of the bar Defendants propose here. Id. 

at 43-44. Plaintiff also contends that it has not refused to further meet and confer on the 

issue and has informed Defendants that it “has no ongoing patent prosecution involving 

the patents-in-suit” and that Plaintiff’s counsel “do not perform or offer any client any 

traditional prosecution legal services.” Id. at 42. Since there are no competitive decision 

makers for Plaintiff, Defendants cannot establish the need for a prosecution bar. Id. 

Plaintiff notes that Defendants’ proposed prosecution bar is overly broad and senses that 

Defendants improperly “seek[] to impose punitive measures on AGNC’s current litigation 

counsel (and their business livelihoods) for daring to bring litigation against LGE.” Id. at 

43. Finally, Plaintiff contends that this District has previously rejected prosecution bars 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 24
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 - 

17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM

that limit participating in post-grant proceedings like the bar Defendants propose. Id. at 

44-46. 

A. Legal Standard 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, “the court may, for good cause, 

issue an order to protect a party . . . from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or 

undue burden or expense, including . . . . requiring that a trade secret or other confidential 

research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in 

a specific way.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The burden of proof is on the moving party 

to make a clear showing of particular and specific need for the protective order. See 

Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975); see also Phoenix Solutions 

Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 254 F.R.D. 568, 575 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (citing Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(c)) (“The burden of demonstrating the need for protection from discovery is placed 

on the party seeking a protective order, not on the party opposing the order.”). While 

courts regularly authorize protective orders that place limitations on the use of confidential 

documents, the Federal Circuit has recognized that “there may be circumstances in which 

even the most rigorous efforts of the recipient of [sensitive] information to preserve 

confidentiality in compliance with the provisions of ... a protective order may not prevent 

inadvertent compromise.” In re Deutsche Bank Trust Co., 605 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed.Cir. 

2010). The court concluded that in such circumstances, the risk of inadvertent disclosure 

of sensitive information is so great that a prosecution bar, which prohibits an attorney 

who receives sensitive material from prosecuting related patents on behalf of the same 

client, may be required. Id. 

In Deutsche Bank, 605 F.3d 1373, the Federal Circuit clarified the standard for 

imposing a prosecution bar. Initially, the party seeking the prosecution bar must establish 

that “the kind of information that will trigger the bar is relevant to the preparation and 

prosecution of patent applications before the PTO.” Id. at 1381. Then, the party must 

establish that the bar is necessary given the potential risk of inadvertent disclosure or 

improper use of the protected information. Id. at 1378-80. To do this, the party must 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 24
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 - 

17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM

present “facts on a counsel-by-counsel basis” which establish that each counsel is involved 

in “competitive decisionmaking.” Id. at 1378 (citing U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 730 

F.2d 1465, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). The court confirmed that “competitive decisionmaking” 

is “shorthand for a counsel’s activities, association, and relationship with a client that are 

such as to involve counsel’s advice and participation in any or all of the client’s decisions 

(pricing, product design, etc.) made in light of similar or corresponding information about 

a competitor.” Id. (citing U.S. Steel, 730 F.2d at 1468 n.3). Where counsel is involved in 

competitive decisionmaking, the risk of disclosure may outweigh the need of counsel for 

the confidential information. Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc., 198 F.R.D. 525, 529 (N.D. 

Cal. 2000). 

However, the Federal Circuit rejected the notion that every patent prosecution 

attorney is necessarily involved in competitive decisionmaking. Deutsche Bank, 605 F.3d 

at 1379. In so finding, the Deutsche Bank court distinguished administrative and oversight 

duties from activities in which counsel play a “significant role in crafting the content of 

patent applications or advising clients on the direction to take their portfolios,” with the 

latter activities posing a more significant risk of inadvertent disclosure than the former. 

Id. at 1379–80; Xerox Corp. v. Google, Inc., 270 F.R.D. 182, 183 (D. Del. 2010). As a 

result, the court emphasized that the competitive decisionmaking and risk of inadvertent 

disclosure determinations must be made on a counsel-by-counsel basis. Deutsche Bank, 

605 F.3d at 1378. 

The moving party also must establish that the scope and terms of the proposed 

prosecution bar are reasonable. Deutsche Bank, 605 F.3d at 1381. “This inquiry measures 

whether (1) the information designed to trigger the bar, (2) the scope of activities 

prohibited by the bar, (3) the duration of the bar, and (4) the subject matter covered by 

the bar reasonably reflect the risk presented by the disclosure of proprietary competitive 

information.” Ameranth, Inc. v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 2012 WL 528248, *4 (S.D. Cal. 2012) 

(citing Deutsche Bank, 605 F.3d at 1381). 

If the moving party establishes that a prosecution bar is appropriate, the burden 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 24
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 - 

17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM

shifts to the objecting party to establish that an attorney should be exempted from the 

bar. Deutsche Bank, 605 F.3d at 1381. To do this, the party seeking the exemption from 

a patent prosecution bar must show on a counsel-by-counsel basis: (1) that counsel’s 

representation of the client in matters before the PTO does not and is not likely to implicate 

competitive decisionmaking related to the subject matter of the litigation so as to give rise 

to a risk of inadvertent use of confidential information learned in litigation, and (2) that 

the potential injury to the moving party from restrictions imposed on its choice of litigation 

and prosecution counsel outweighs the potential injury to the opposing party caused by 

such inadvertent use. Id. 

B. Analysis 

Here, Defendants have not satisfied their burden of establishing that the protected 

information is “relevant to the preparation and prosecution of patent applications before 

the PTO.” Deutsche Bank, 605 F.3d at 1381. Defendants propose the following language 

for the prosecution bar: 

Any attorney representing a Party, and any person associated with a Party 

and permitted to receive the other Party’s Confidential Information that 

is designated CONFIDENTIAL – FOR COUNSEL ONLY and/or RESTRICTED

CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE (collectively “HIGHLY SENSITIVE 

MATERIAL”), who obtains, receives, has access to, or otherwise learns, 

in whole or in part, the other Party’s HIGHLY SENSITIVE MATERIAL under 

this Order shall not prepare, prosecute, supervise, or assist in the 

preparation or prosecution of any patent application pertaining to motion 

sensing, positioning, mapping, and navigation technology on behalf of the 

receiving Party or its acquirer, successor, predecessor, or other affiliate 

during the pendency of this Action and for one year after its conclusion, 

including any appeals. To ensure compliance with the purpose of this 

provision, each Party shall create an “Ethical Wall” between those persons 

with access to HIGHLY SENSITIVE MATERIAL and any individuals who, 

on behalf of the Party or its acquirer, successor, predecessor, or other 

affiliate, prepare, prosecute, supervise or assist in the preparation or 

prosecution of any patent application pertaining to the field of invention 

of the patent-in-suit. For the avoidance of doubt, “prosecution” includes 

any activity related to the competitive business decisions involving (i) the 

preparation or prosecution (for any person or entity) of patent

applications, including among others reexamination and reissue 

applications or (ii) directly or indirectly participating, drafting, amending, 

advising, or otherwise affecting the scope or maintenance of patent 

claims. “Prosecution” as used in this paragraph does not include 

representing a party challenging a patent before a domestic or foreign 

agency (including, but not limited to, a reissue protest, ex parte 

reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, post grant 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 24
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 

 - 6 - 

17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM

review or covered business method review) 

Protective Order Proposed Language Lodged with the Court on October 5, 2017. 

Defendants’ proposed protective order defines the CONFIDENTIAL – FOR COUNSEL 

ONLY designation as including the information “considered to be most sensitive by the 

party, including but not limited to trade secret or other confidential research, 

development, financial or other commercial information.” Id. As such, Defendants’ 

proposed prosecution ban is overly-broad and could encompass significant amounts and 

types of information and documents that, while sensitive, are not relevant to patent 

applications, especially future applications. Deutsche Bank, 606 F.3d at 1381 (“For 

example, financial data and other sensitive business information, even if deemed 

confidential, would not normally be relevant to a patent application and thus would not 

normally be expected to trigger a patent prosecution bar” and “information related to new 

inventions and technology under development, especially those that are not already the 

subject of pending patent applications, may pose a heightened risk of inadvertent 

disclosure” whereas other sensitive business information would not). In addition, 

Defendants’ proposed bar definition extends beyond attorneys and includes “any person 

associated with a party and permitted to receive” the highly confidential information and 

Defendants provide no facts or support for this extended bar. 

Because Defendants have failed to “show that the information designated to trigger 

the bar, the scope of the activities prohibited by the bar, the duration of the bar, and the 

subject matter covered by the bar reasonably reflect the risk presented by the disclosure 

of proprietary information,” the Court declines to impose a prosecution bar. Plaintiff 

therefore, is not required to show on a counsel-by-counsel basis that its attorneys are not 

competitive decision makers nor its potential injury if a prosecution bar were to be put in 

place. Deutsche Bank, 605 F.3d at 1381. However, the Court notes that Plaintiff does 

state that “[t]here simply are no patent prosecutors who engage in competitive decision 

making for AGNC; AGNC does not even have in-house counsel.” Id. at 42. 

Finally, Defendants’ argument that a prosecution bar is appropriate in the instant 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 24
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 - 

17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM

matter because Plaintiff has agreed to a prosecution bar in other matters is unavailing. 

Plaintiff’s case in the Eastern District of Texas does not control the current case before 

the Court in the Southern District of California. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ request to include a prosecution bar 

in the parties’ protective order. 

ACQUISITION BAR

Defendants propose that the protective order include an acquisition bar for similar 

reasons as those supporting a prosecution bar.1 Id. at 47. Defendants argue that the bar 

would apply equally to counsel for Defendants and Plaintiff and that since Defendants 

likely will be producing a much larger amount of information than Plaintiff, the risk of 

inadvertent disclosure is much higher for Defendants. Id. at 49-50. Defendants note that 

the Court in this district and courts in many other districts have entered protective orders 

with acquisition bars. Id. at 47-48. 

Plaintiff argues that there should be “[n]o acquisition bar” and notes that this 

Court’s model protective order does not contain such a bar. Id. at 47. Plaintiff also argues 

that the bar would be unduly burdensome “to the point of being personally punitive and 

harassing.” Id. at 50. Plaintiff argues that an acquisition bar is unnecessary as Defendants 

are not producing their “crown jewels” in this case and the request contradicts Defendants’ 

claim that it possesses very little knowledge of the technology at issue in the instant 

matter. Id. at 51-52. Finally, Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ proposed bar is over broad 

and beyond the acquisition bar examples cited by Defendants. Id. at 52. If the Court 

grants Defendants’ request for an acquisition bar, Plaintiff asks that the bar be limited to 

 

1 Defendants’ proposed language is as follows: “Absent written consent from the 

producing party, any individual who receives access to “CONFIDENTIAL,” “CONFIDENTIAL 

– FOR COUNSEL ONLY” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE” information 

designated by the producing party shall not be involved in activity related to: (i) the 

acquisition of patents or patent applications (for any person or entity) pertaining to motion 

sensing, positioning, mapping, and navigation technology; or (ii) advising or counseling 

clients regarding the same. This Acquisition Bar shall begin when access to 

“CONFIDENTIAL,” “CONFIDENTIAL – FOR COUNSEL ONLY” or “RESTRICTED 

CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE” information is first received by the affected individual and 

shall end three (3) years after final disposition of this action as provided herein.” 

Protective Order Proposed Language Lodged with the Court on October 5, 2017. 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 24
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 - 

17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM

the patents asserted against Defendants and that it include counsel for both Defendants 

and Plaintiff. Id. at 54. 

For the same reasons the Court denies Defendants’ request to include a prosecution 

bar in the parties’ protective order, it also DENIES Defendants’ request to include an 

acquisition bar. In further support, the Court notes that Defendants’ acquisition bar 

definition is even broader than their prosecution bar definition as the acquisition bar also 

would be imposed on any individual who has access only to “CONFIDENTIAL” information. 

Id. at 47. Defendants provide no legal or factual support for this expanded request. 

SEPARATE TRIAL AGREEMENT 

Defendants argue that the “[h]andling of designated information at trial should be 

governed by a separate agreement.” Id. at 54-55. Specifically, Defendants propose 

language that states 

Any use of Confidential Information at trial shall be governed by a separate 

agreement or order. A receiving Party shall provide a minimum of two business 

days’ notice to the producing Party in the event that the receiving Party intends to 

use any Confidential Information during trial. Subject to any challenges under 

paragraph 13, the Parties will not oppose any reasonable request by the producing 

Party. 

Protective Order Proposed Language Lodged with the Court on October 5, 2017. 

 Plaintiff argues that a separate agreement for trial is unnecessary. Id. at 54. 

Plaintiff contends that going through this process again for an additional trial protective 

order would be burdensome and unnecessary as the parties could always “request that 

the courtroom be sealed” if Court’s model protective order did not provide sufficient 

protections. Id. at 55. 

At this time the Court declines to rule on how confidential information will be 

handled during trial. The issue is premature as the case is still in its early stages and 

dates have only been set through claim construction. See ECF No. 33. Accordingly, the 

Court declines to include Defendants’ requested language. 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 24
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 - 

17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court enters the Protective Order attached as Exhibit 

A to this Order.2

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 10/23/2017 

 

2 In addition to choosing between the parties’ disputed language, the Court modified the 

language of paragraph 12. 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 24
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 - 

17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM

EXHIBIT A 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 24
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 

 - 11 - 

17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM

The Court recognizes that at least some of the documents and information 

(“materials”) being sought through discovery in the above-captioned action are, for 

competitive reasons, normally kept confidential by the parties. The parties have agreed to 

be bound by the terms of this Protective Order (“Order”) in this action. 

The materials to be exchanged throughout the course of the litigation between the 

parties may contain trade secret or other confidential research, technical, cost, price, 

marketing or other commercial information, as is contemplated by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(c)(7). The purpose of this Order is to protect the confidentiality of such 

materials as much as practical during the litigation. THEREFORE: 

DEFINITIONS 

1. The term “Confidential Information” shall mean and include information 

contained or disclosed in any materials, including documents, portions of documents, 

answers to interrogatories, responses to requests for admissions, trial testimony, 

deposition testimony, and transcripts of trial testimony and depositions, including data, 

summaries, and compilations derived therefrom that is deemed to be Confidential 

Information by any party to which it belongs. 

2. The term “materials” shall include, but shall not be limited to: documents; 

correspondence; memoranda; bulletins; blueprints; specifications; customer lists or other 

material that identify customers or potential customers; price lists or schedules or other 

matter identifying pricing; minutes; telegrams; letters; statements; cancelled checks; 

contracts; invoices; drafts; books of account; worksheets; notes of conversations; desk 

diaries; appointment books; expense accounts; recordings; photographs; motion pictures; 

compilations from which information can be obtained and translated into reasonably 

usable form through detection devices; sketches; drawings; notes (including laboratory 

notebooks and records); reports; instructions; disclosures; other writings; models and 

prototypes and other physical objects. 

3. The term “counsel” shall mean outside counsel of record, and other 

attorneys, paralegals, secretaries, and other support staff employed in the law firms 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 24
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 - 

17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM

identified below: 

Crosbie Gliner Schiffman Southard & Swanson LLP; Sullivan Hill Lewis Rez & Engel; Global 

IP Law Group, LLC; White & Case LLP; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 

GENERAL RULES 

4. Each party to this litigation that produces or discloses any materials, answers 

to interrogatories, responses to requests for admission, trial testimony, deposition 

testimony, and transcripts of trial testimony and depositions, or information that the 

producing party believes should be subject to this Protective Order may designate the 

same as “CONFIDENTIAL,” “CONFIDENTIAL - FOR COUNSEL ONLY,” or “RESTRICTED 

CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE.” 

a. Designation as “CONFIDENTIAL”: Any party may designate 

information as “CONFIDENTIAL” only if, in the good faith belief of such party and its 

counsel, the unrestricted disclosure of such information could be potentially prejudicial to 

the business or operations of such party. 

b. Designation as “CONFIDENTIAL - FOR COUNSEL ONLY”: Any party 

may designate information as “CONFIDENTIAL - FOR COUNSEL ONLY” or a similar 

designation only if, in the good faith belief of such party and its counsel, the information 

is among that considered to be most sensitive by the party, including but not limited to 

trade secret or other confidential research, development, financial or other commercial 

information. 

C. Designation as “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE”: Any 

party may designate information as “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE” only 

if, the material is considered extremely sensitive by the party, and represents computer 

code and associated comments and revision histories, formulas, engineering 

specifications, or schematics that define or otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or 

structure of software or hardware designs, disclosure of which to another party or nonparty would create a substantial risk of harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive 

means (“Source Code Material”). 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 24
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 - 

17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM

5. In the event the producing party elects to produce materials for inspection, 

no marking need be made by the producing party in advance of the initial inspection. For 

purposes of the initial inspection, all materials produced shall be considered as 

“CONFIDENTIAL - FOR COUNSEL ONLY,” and shall be treated as such pursuant to the 

terms of this Order. Thereafter, upon selection of specified materials for copying by the 

inspecting party, the producing party shall, within a reasonable time prior to producing 

those materials to the inspecting party, mark the copies of those materials that contain 

Confidential Information with the appropriate confidentiality marking. 

6. Whenever a deposition taken on behalf of any party involves a disclosure of 

Confidential Information of any party: 

a. said deposition or portions thereof shall be designated as containing 

Confidential Information subject to the provisions of this Order; such designation shall be 

made on the record whenever possible, but a party may designate portions of depositions 

as containing Confidential Information after transcription of the proceedings; a party shall 

have until fifteen (15) days after receipt of the deposition transcript to inform the other 

party or parties to the action of the portions of the transcript designated “CONFIDENTIAL,” 

“CONFIDENTIAL - FOR COUNSEL ONLY,” “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE;” 

b. the disclosing party shall have the right to exclude from attendance 

at said deposition, during such time as the Confidential Information is to be disclosed, any 

person other than the deponent, counsel (including their staff and associates), the court 

reporter, and the person(s) agreed upon pursuant to paragraph 8 below; 

c. the originals of said deposition transcripts and all copies thereof shall 

bear the legend “CONFIDENTIAL,” “CONFIDENTIAL - FOR COUNSEL ONLY,” or 

“RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE,” as appropriate, and the original or any 

copy ultimately presented to a court for filing shall not be filed unless it can be 

accomplished under seal, identified as being subject to this Order, and protected from 

being opened except by order of this Court; and 

d. to the extent the Confidential Information to be disclosed includes 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 24
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 

 - 14 - 

17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM

information designated as “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE,” any paper 

copies of such information used during the deposition may not be left with a court reporter 

or any unauthorized individual. 

7. All Confidential Information designated as “CONFIDENTIAL,” 

“CONFIDENTIAL - FOR COUNSEL ONLY,” OR “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE 

CODE” shall not be disclosed by the receiving party to anyone other than those persons 

designated herein and shall be handled in the manner set forth below and, in any event, 

shall not be used for any purpose other than in connection with this litigation, unless and 

until such designation is removed either by agreement of the parties, or by order of the 

Court. 

8. Information designated “CONFIDENTIAL - FOR COUNSEL ONLY” shall be 

viewed only by counsel (as defined in paragraph 3) of the receiving party, and by 

independent experts under the conditions set forth in this Paragraph. The right of any 

independent expert to receive any Confidential Information shall be subject to the advance 

approval of such expert by the producing party or by permission of the Court. The party 

seeking approval of an independent expert shall provide the producing party with the 

name and curriculum vitae of the proposed independent expert, entities from whom the 

expert has received payment or rendered services in the last five (5) years, a list of 

litigation in which the expert has previously offered testimony, and an executed copy of 

the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, in advance of providing any Confidential 

Information of the producing party to the expert. Any objection by the producing party to 

an independent expert receiving Confidential Information must be made in writing within 

fourteen (14) days following receipt of the identification of the proposed expert. 

Confidential Information may be disclosed to an independent expert if the fourteen (14) 

day period has passed and no objection has been made. The approval of independent 

experts shall not be unreasonably withheld. Information designated “CONFIDENTIAL - 

FOR COUNSEL ONLY” may also be viewed by the additional individuals listed below: 

 a. Stenographic and clerical employees associated with the individuals 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

 24
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 

 - 15 - 

17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM

identified above, including court reporters, videographers, jury or trial consultants, and 

graphics or design vendors; and 

 b. the Court and its personnel. 

9. Information designated “CONFIDENTIAL” shall be viewed only by counsel 

(as defined in paragraph 3) of the receiving party, by independent experts (pursuant to 

the terms of paragraph 8), and by the additional individuals listed below, provided each 

such individual has read this Order in advance of disclosure and has agreed in writing to 

be bound by its terms: 

a. Executives who are required to participate in policy decisions with 

reference to this action; 

b. Technical personnel of the parties with whom Counsel for the parties 

find it necessary to consult, in the discretion of such counsel, in preparation for trial of 

this action; and 

c. Stenographic and clerical employees associated with the individuals 

identified above, including court reporters, videographers, jury or trial consultants, and 

graphics or design vendors; and 

d. the Court and its personnel. 

10. With respect to material designated “CONFIDENTIAL,” “CONFIDENTIAL - 

FOR COUNSEL ONLY,” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE,” any person 

indicated on the face of the document to be its originator, author or a recipient of a copy 

thereof, may be shown the same. 

11. All information which has been designated as “CONFIDENTIAL,” 

“CONFIDENTIAL -FOR COUNSEL ONLY,” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE” 

by the producing or disclosing party, and any and all reproductions thereof, shall be 

retained in the custody of the counsel for the receiving party identified in paragraph 3, 

except that independent experts authorized to view such information under the terms of 

this Order may retain custody of copies such as are necessary for their participation in this 

litigation. 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of

 24
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 

 - 16 - 

17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM

12. Before any materials produced in discovery, answers to interrogatories, 

responses to requests for admissions, deposition transcripts, or other documents which 

are designated as Confidential Information are filed with the Court for any purpose, the 

party seeking to file such material shall seek permission of the Court to file said material 

under seal. No document may be filed under seal, i.e., closed to inspection by the public 

except pursuant to a Court order that authorizes the sealing of the particular document, 

or portions of it. A sealing order may issue only upon a showing that the information is 

privileged or protectable under the law. The request must be narrowly tailored to seek 

sealing only of the confidential or privileged material. To file a document under seal, the 

parties must comply with the procedures explained in Section 2.j of the Electronic Case 

Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual for the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of California and Civil Local Rule 79.2. In addition, in 

accordance with Judge Major's preferences, a party must file a ‘public’ version 

of any document that it seeks to file under seal. In the public version, the party 

may redact only that information that is deemed “Confidential.” The party 

should file the redacted document(s) simultaneously with a joint motion or ex 

parte application requesting that the confidential portions of the document(s) 

be filed under seal and setting forth good cause for the request. 

13. At any stage of these proceedings, any party may object to a designation of 

the materials as Confidential Information. The party objecting to confidentiality shall 

notify, in writing, counsel for the designating party of the objected-to materials and the 

grounds for the objection. If the dispute is not resolved consensually between the parties 

within seven (7) business days of receipt of such a notice of objections, the objecting 

party may move the Court for a ruling on the objection. The materials at issue shall be 

treated as Confidential Information, as designated by the designating party, until the Court 

has ruled on the objection or the matter has been otherwise resolved. 

14. All Confidential Information shall be held in confidence by those inspecting 

or receiving it, and shall be used only for purposes of this action. Counsel for each party, 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of

 24
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 

 - 17 - 

17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM

and each person receiving Confidential Information shall take reasonable precautions to 

prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of such information. If Confidential 

Information is disclosed to any person other than a person authorized by this Order, the 

party responsible for the unauthorized disclosure must immediately bring all pertinent 

facts relating to the unauthorized disclosure to the attention of the other parties in writing 

and, without prejudice to any rights and remedies of the other parties, make every effort 

to prevent further disclosure by the party and by the person(s) receiving the unauthorized 

disclosure, including best efforts to retrieve any copies of the disclosed Confidential 

Information and asking the recipient to execute a copy of the form attached hereto as 

Exhibit A. 

15. No party shall be responsible to another party for disclosure of Confidential 

Information under this Order if the information in question is not labeled or otherwise 

identified as such in accordance with this Order. 

16. If a party, through inadvertence, produces any Confidential Information 

without labeling or marking or otherwise designating it as such in accordance with this 

Order, the designating party may give written notice to the receiving party that the 

document or thing produced is deemed Confidential Information, and that the document 

or thing produced should be treated as such in accordance with that designation under 

this Order. The receiving party must treat the materials as confidential, once the 

designating party so notifies the receiving party. If the receiving party has disclosed the 

materials before receiving the designation, the receiving party must notify the designating 

party in writing of each such disclosure. Counsel for the parties shall agree on a mutually 

acceptable manner of labeling or marking the inadvertently produced materials as 

“CONFIDENTIAL,” “CONFIDENTIAL - FOR COUNSEL ONLY,” or “RESTRICTED 

CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE” - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER. 

17. Nothing herein shall prejudice the right of any party to object to the 

production of any discovery material on the grounds that the material is protected as 

privileged or as attorney work product. 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 17 of

 24
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 

 - 18 - 

17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM

18. Nothing in this Order shall bar counsel from rendering advice to their clients 

with respect to this litigation and, in the course thereof, relying upon any information 

designated as Confidential Information, provided that the contents of the information shall 

not be disclosed. 

19. This Order shall be without prejudice to the right of any party to oppose 

production of any information for lack of relevance or any other ground other than the 

mere presence of Confidential Information. The existence of this Order shall not be used 

by either party as a basis for discovery that is otherwise not proper under the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

20. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent disclosure of Confidential 

Information if such disclosure is required by law or by order of the Court. 

21. Within 30 days of final termination of this action, including any and all 

appeals, counsel for each party shall, upon request of the producing party, return all 

Confidential Information to the party that produced the information, including any copies, 

excerpts, and summaries thereof, or shall destroy same at the option of the receiving 

party, and shall purge all such information from all machine-readable media on which it 

resides. Notwithstanding the foregoing, counsel for each party may retain all pleadings, 

briefs, memoranda, motions, and other documents filed with the Court that refer to or 

incorporate Confidential Information, and will continue to be bound by this Order with 

respect to all such retained information. Further, attorney work product materials that 

contain Confidential Information need not be destroyed, but, if they are not destroyed, 

the person in possession of the attorney work product will continue to be bound by this 

Order with respect to all such retained information. 

22. The restrictions and obligations set forth herein shall not apply to any 

information that: (a) the parties agree should not be designated Confidential Information; 

(b) the parties agree, or the Court rules, is already public knowledge; (c) the parties agree, 

or the Court rules, has become public knowledge other than as a result of disclosure by 

the receiving party, its employees, or its agents in violation of this Order; or (d) has come 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 18 of

 24
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 

 - 19 - 

17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM

or shall come into the receiving party's legitimate knowledge independently of the 

production by the designating party, where the receiving party has obtained the 

information lawfully and is under no obligation of confidentiality to the designating party. 

Prior knowledge must be established by pre-production documentation. 

23. The restrictions and obligations herein shall not be deemed to prohibit 

discussions of any Confidential Information with anyone if that person already has or 

obtains legitimate possession thereof. 

24. Transmission by facsimile or email is acceptable for all notification purposes 

herein. 

25. This Order may be modified by agreement of the parties, subject to approval 

by the Court. 

26. The Court may modify the terms and conditions of this Order for good cause, 

or in the interest of justice, or on its own order at any time in these proceedings. The 

parties prefer that the Court provide them with notice of the Court’s intent to modify the 

Order and the content of those modifications, prior to entry of such an order. 

28. For material designated RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE, the 

following additional restrictions apply: 

(a) Access to a Party’s Source Code Material shall be provided only on “stand-alone” 

computer(s) (that is, the computer may not be linked to any network, including a local 

area network (“LAN”), an intranet or the Internet). The stand-alone computer(s) may be 

connected to a printer solely for the limited purpose permitted pursuant to paragraph 

28(h) below. Additionally, the stand-alone computer(s) may only be located at the offices 

of the producing Party’s outside counsel, and the receiving Party shall not copy, remove, 

or otherwise transfer any portion of the source code onto any recordable media or 

recordable device. 

(b) The receiving Party shall make reasonable efforts to restrict its requests for 

such access to the stand-along computer(s) to normal business hours, which for purposes 

of this paragraph shall be 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. However, upon reasonable notice 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 19 of

 24
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 

 - 20 - 

17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM

from the receiving party, the producing Party shall make reasonable efforts to 

accommodate the receiving Party’s request for access to the stand-alone computer(s) 

outside of normal business hours. The Parties agree to cooperate in good faith such that 

maintaining the producing Party’s Source Code Material at the offices of its outside counsel 

shall not unreasonably hinder the receiving Party’s ability to efficiently and effectively 

conduct the prosecution or defense of this Action; 

(c) The producing Party shall provide the receiving Party with information 

explaining how to start, log on to, and operate the stand-alone computer(s) in order to 

access the produced Source Code Material on the stand-alone computer(s); 

(d) The producing Party will produce Source Code Material in computer searchable 

format on the stand-alone computer(s) as described above; 

(e) Access to material designated RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL - SOURCE CODE 

shall be limited to outside counsel and up to three (3) outside consultants or experts3 (i.e., 

not existing employees or affiliates of a Party or an affiliate of a Party) retained for the 

purpose of this litigation and approved to access such materials pursuant to paragraph 

5(e) above. A receiving Party may include excerpts of Source Code Material in a pleading, 

exhibit, expert report, discovery document, deposition transcript, other Court document, 

provided that the Source Code Documents are appropriately marked under this Order, 

restricted to those who are entitled to have access to them as specified herein, and, if 

filed with the Court, filed under seal in accordance with the Court’s rules, procedures and 

orders; 

(f) To the extent portions of Source Code Material are quoted in a Source Code 

Document, either (1) the entire Source Code Document will be stamped and treated as 

RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE or (2) those pages containing quoted Source 

Code Material will be separately stamped and treated as RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL 

 

3

 For the purposes of this paragraph, an outside consultant or expert is defined to 

include the outside consultant’s or expert’s direct reports and other support personnel, 

such that the disclosure to a consultant or expert who employs others within his or her 

firm to help in his or her analysis shall count as a disclosure to a single consultant or 

expert. 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 20 of

 24
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 

 - 21 - 

17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM

SOURCE CODE; 

(g) No electronic copies of Source Code Material shall be made without prior written 

consent of the producing Party, except as necessary to create documents which, pursuant 

to the Court’s rules, procedures and order, must be filed or served electronically; 

 (h) The receiving Party shall be permitted to make a reasonable number of 

printouts and photocopies of Source Code Material, all of which shall be designated and 

clearly labeled “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE,” and the receiving Party 

shall maintain a log of all such files that are printed or photocopied; 

 (i) If the receiving Party’s outside counsel, consultants, or experts obtain printouts 

or photocopies of Source Code Material, the receiving Party shall ensure that such outside 

counsel, consultants, or experts keep the printouts or photocopies in a secured locked 

area in the offices of such outside counsel, consultants, or expert. The receiving Party 

may also temporarily keep the printouts or photocopies at: (i) the Court for any 

proceedings(s) relating to the Source Code Material, for the dates associated with the 

proceeding(s); (ii) the sites where any deposition(s) relating to the Source Code Material 

are taken, for the dates associated with the deposition(s); and (iii) any intermediate 

location reasonably necessary to transport the printouts or photocopies (e.g., a hotel prior 

to a Court proceeding or deposition); and 

(k) A producing Party’s Source Code Material may only be transported by the 

receiving Party at the direction of a person authorized under paragraph 28(e) above to 

another person authorized under paragraph 28(e) above, on paper via hand carry, Federal 

Express or other similarly reliable courier. Source Code Material may not be transported 

or transmitted electronically over a network of any kind, including a LAN, an intranet, or 

the Internet. 

29. To the extent that any discovery is taken of persons who are not Parties to 

this Action (“Third Parties”) and in the event that such Third Parties contend the discovery 

sought involves trade secrets, confidential business information, or other proprietary 

information, such Third Parties may agree to be bound by this Order. 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 21 of

 24
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 

 - 22 - 

17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM

30. To the extent that discovery or testimony is taken of Third Parties, the Third 

Parties may designate as “CONFIDENTIAL,” “CONFIDENTIAL – FOR COUNSEL ONLY” or 

“RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE” any documents, information or other 

material, in whole or in part, produced or given by such Third Parties. The Third Parties 

shall have ten (10) days after production of (or testimony concerning) such documents, 

information or other materials to make such a designation. Until that time period lapses 

or until such a designation has been made, whichever occurs sooner, all documents, 

information or other material so produced or given shall be treated as “CONFIDENTIAL” 

in accordance with this Order. 

31. Any Party knowing or believing that any other party is in violation of or 

intends to violate this Order and has raised the question of violation or potential violation 

with the opposing party and has been unable to resolve the matter by agreement may 

move the Court for such relief as may be appropriate in the circumstances. Pending 

disposition of the motion by the Court, the Party alleged to be in violation shall discontinue 

the performance of and/or shall not undertake the further performance of any action 

alleged to constitute a violation of this Order. 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 22 of

 24
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 

 

AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY PROTECTIVE ORDER

[3:17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM]

EXHIBIT A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AMERICAN GNC CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

LG ELECTRONICS INC., LG ELECTRONICS 

MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC., AND LG 

ELECTRONICS MOBILE RESEARCH U.S.A., 

LLC, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM 

Judge: Hon. Cynthia Bashant 

AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND 

BY PROTECTIVE ORDER 

I, , declare and say that: 

1. I am employed as 

by 

2. I have read the Protective Order entered in American GNC Corporation v. 

LG Electronics Inc. et al, Case No. 3:17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM, and have received a copy 

of the Protective Order. 

3. I promise that I will use any and all “CONFIDENTIAL” “CONFIDENTIAL - 

FOR COUNSEL ONLY,” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE” information, as 

defined in the Protective Order, given to me only in a manner authorized by the 

Protective Order, and only to assist counsel in the litigation of this matter. 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 23 of

 24
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 

 

AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY PROTECTIVE ORDER

[3:17-CV-01090-BAS-BLM]

4. I promise that I will not disclose or discuss such “CONFIDENTIAL,” 

“CONFIDENTIAL – FOR COUNSEL ONLY,” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE 

CODE” information with anyone other than the persons described in paragraph 3 of the 

Protective Order. 

5. I acknowledge that, by signing this agreement, I am subjecting myself to 

the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California 

with respect to enforcement of the Protective Order. 

6. I understand that any disclosure or use of “CONFIDENTIAL,” 

“CONFIDENTIAL - FOR COUNSEL ONLY,” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE 

CODE” information in any manner contrary to the provisions of the Protective Order may 

subject me to sanctions for contempt of court. 

7. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Date: 

Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 51 Filed 10/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 24 of

 24