Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148-49/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL

CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

 MEDIATEK, INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

____________________________________/

Case No. C-05-3148 MMC (JCS)

ORDER RE MARCH 13, 2007 DISCOVERY

ORDER [Docket No. 547]

The Court is in receipt of letters from counsel dated March 14, 2007, [Docket Nos. 549 and

550]. Matsushita’s interpretation of this Court’s “Order Re Pending Discovery Motions” of

March 13, 2007 (the “March 13, 2007 Order”) [Docket No. 547] is entirely incorrect. It was the

intent of the March 13, 2007 Order to overrule Matsushita’s objection to the production of the

documents at issue on the basis on Federal Rule of Evidence 408. Of course, to the extent that there

are documents that are otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work

product doctrine, those privileges were not addressed in the March 13, 2007 Order, and may still be

asserted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2007 _______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 551 Filed 03/15/07 Page 1 of 1