Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01336/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01336-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN DIEGO

 SD\592943.2 

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IN RE INFOSONICS CORPORATION 

DERIVATIVE LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to: 

ALL ACTIONS. 

Lead Case No. 06-CV-1336 BTM (WMC) 

(Derivative Action) 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION 

AND APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE 

ORDER 

Judge: Honorable Barry T. Moskowitz 

Ctrm.: 15 

Case 3:06-cv-01336-JLS-WMC Document 61 Filed 07/24/07 Page 1 of 4
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN DIEGO

 SD\592943.2 

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 

The Joint Motion and Application for entry of a Stipulated Protective Order (the 

“Application”) was filed on July 17, 2007. 

Having considered the papers and argument of counsel, and good cause appearing 

therefor, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Application is granted: 

The Court makes the findings and orders the procedures set forth below governing the 

disclosure of confidential and proprietary information produced by Defendants in connection 

with discovery related to the derivative claims: 

1. In order to protect the confidentiality of the discovery propounded in the instant 

derivative action, it must be produced under a protective order and seal so as to shield intentional 

or inadvertent disclosure while discovery is stayed in the parallel securities class action. 

Therefore, good cause exists for issuance of a protective order to prohibit the improper 

disclosure of discovery from the instant derivative action. 

2. Protected Material: Any discovery that is produced in connection with the 

derivative case is deemed “Protected Material.” 

3. Disclosure of Protected Material: The disclosure of the Protected Material will 

proceed pursuant to the Joint Protective Order stipulated to by both Parties. 

4. No Disclosure Of Protected Material To Third Parties Or Plaintiff: Protected 

Material shall not at any time be disclosed to third parties or plaintiff, including without 

limitation its officers, members, directors, shareholders, employees and agents, investors, 

predecessors, parents, subsidiaries, and affiliated companies. 

5. Disclosure Of Protected Material To Experts Or Consultants: This Protective 

Order shall be binding on any expert or consultant to whom Protected Material is disclosed by 

Counsel. Any expert or consultant to whom Counsel intends to disclose Protected Material shall 

be provided a copy of this Protective Order and shall further be required to execute, prior to 

disclosure of Protected Material, the Acknowledgement of Confidentiality attached hereto as 

Exhibit A. 

/ / / 

Case 3:06-cv-01336-JLS-WMC Document 61 Filed 07/24/07 Page 2 of 4
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN DIEGO

 SD\592943.2 

3

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. Handling Protected Material After This Action Concludes: This Protective 

Order shall continue to be binding while discovery is stayed in the securities class-action, and the 

Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce or modify this Protective Order. At the conclusion of 

this action, at the request and election of InfoSonics, Counsel for plaintiff shall: 

A. Return all Protected Material received from InfoSonics, and shall certify 

in writing that all such Material has been returned within three (3) 

business days of the conclusion of this action; and 

B. Destroy all documents that refer to, reflect, or incorporate information 

 contained in documents designated as Protected Material, and shall certify 

 in writing that such destruction has occurred within three (3) business days 

 of the conclusion of this action. 

7. Paragraph 9(i) of the protective order shall not apply to a witness testifying in 

Court. 

Dated: July 23, 2007 _________________________________ 

 Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz 

 United States District Court Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-01336-JLS-WMC Document 61 Filed 07/24/07 Page 3 of 4
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN DIEGO

 SD\592943.2 

4

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 

 

EXHIBIT A

ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND

I, ________________________ [print or type full name], of 

_______________________________________________ [print or type full address], declare 

under penalty of perjury that I have read in its entirety and understand the Protective Order that 

was issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on 

________________ in the case of In Re InfoSonics Corporation Derivative Litigation, Case No. 

06-CV-1336 BTM (WMC). I agree to comply with and to be bound by all the terms of this 

Protective Order and I understand and acknowledge that failure to so comply could expose me to 

sanctions and punishment in the nature of contempt. I solemnly promise that I will not disclose 

in any manner any information or item that is subject to this Protective Order to any person or 

entity except in strict compliance with the provisions of this Order. 

Date: _____________________________ 

City and State where sworn and signed: ___________________________ 

Printed name: ___________________________________ 

Signature: ____________________________ 

Case 3:06-cv-01336-JLS-WMC Document 61 Filed 07/24/07 Page 4 of 4