Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04133/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04133-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EPIC GAMES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACCELERATION BAY LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-04133-YGR (SK)

ORDER REGARDING DISPUTED 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Regarding Docket No. 63

The parties filed a joint letter brief to address their dispute regarding provisions in a 

protective order. The parties dispute the terms of a protective order regarding the review of source 

code. 

Plaintiff Epic Games, Inc. requests that the Court issue a protective order that states that a 

receiving party of materials designated as “Highly Confidential – Source Code” be allowed to 

disclose those materials to only three experts. Plaintiff provides no valid reason for limiting the 

disclosure other than Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant does not need more than three experts,

and Defendant Acceleration Bay LLC explains that, to examine source code, it might be required 

to retain different expert witnesses for different parts of the source code. The Court cannot 

determine in advance how many experts are necessary to examine source code in this case. The 

Court DENIES this request. 

Plaintiff also requests that the Court issue a protective order that allows a receiving party 

only 50 hours to review materials designated as “Highly Confidential – Source Code.” Again, 

Plaintiff argues that Defendant does not need more than 50 hours and that Defendant in another 

case demanded an additional 30 days to review source code, one month before the discovery 

deadline, and the court there denied those requests. The Court again cannot pre-determine the 

amount of time needed to examine the source code and will not set a limit at this time. If 

Case 4:19-cv-04133-YGR Document 69 Filed 01/17/20 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Defendant abuses the process, the parties can seek guidance from the Court. The Court DENIES 

Plaintiff’s request.

Finally, Plaintiff requests that the Court issue a protective order that allows a receiving 

party who reviews materials designated as “Highly Confidential – Source Code” to take notes only 

by hand. In contrast, Defendant proposes that it be able to take notes electronically but with a 

computer that is not connected to any other network, the internet, or any peripheral device other 

than a keyboard, mouse, and monitor (i.e., without a camera). Forcing litigants to take notes by 

hand in a high technology case is an unnecessary burden on the litigants. The Court DENIES 

Plaintiff’s request and instead GRANTS Defendant’s request. 

The Court will adopt the version proposed by Defendant. Defendant must email its 

proposed version in Microsoft Word to skpo@cand.uscourts.gov by January 22, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2020

______________________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:19-cv-04133-YGR Document 69 Filed 01/17/20 Page 2 of 2