Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01122/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01122-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UTSTARCOM, INC., 

Plaintiff,

v.

STARENT NETWORKS CORP., 

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C -04-1122 PVT

ORDER RE MID-DEPOSITION

DISPUTE

On November 30, 2005, the parties telephonically appeared, requesting this Court’s

intervention regarding a mid-deposition dispute. The dispute centered around Deponent

Michael St. Louis’s refusal to respond to questions regarding a business proposal between

UTStarcom, Inc. (UTSI) and Sprint, specifically, questions seeking information as to the names of

Sprint employees involved in the business proposal and the proposal-related communications which

occurred between UTSI and these Sprint employees. The Court notes that Mr. St. Louis, who is the

Director of Sales for UTSI, refused to answer these questions, despite instruction from UTSI’s

Counsel to do so. 

Mr. St. Louis asserted, as his reason for refusing to answer, the fact that UTSI and Sprint

executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) relative to the business proposal. Nonetheless, the

Court notes that a Protective Order for Confidential Treatment of Documents, Testimony, and

Information as Modified was entered by the Court on December 2, 2004. In addition, UTSI may

Case 5:04-cv-01122-PVT Document 272 Filed 11/30/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

ORDER, page 2

seek additional protections, if necessary, for this information. Furthermore, UTSI’s Counsel

emphatically instructed Mr. St. Louis, a UTSI executive, to answer the questions regarding the

business proposal.

For these reasons, this Court HEREBY ORDERS Mr. St. Louis to ANSWER the questions

regarding the business proposal between UTSI and Sprint.

//

Dated : November 30, 2005 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 5:04-cv-01122-PVT Document 272 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 2