Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01940/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01940-4/pdf.json

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

COLLABORATION PROPERTIES, INC., a

Nevada Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

TANDBERG ASA, and TANDBERG, INC., a

Delaware Corporation,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 05-01940 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Protective Order

On March 6, 2006 plaintiff Collaboration Properties, Inc. and Defendants Tandberg ASA and

Tandberg, Inc. appeared before this court in connection with several pending motions, including a

motion to compel production of certain of defendants’ source code. The court ordered production of

the source code subject to a protective order, which it requested that plaintiff submit. Plaintiff

subsequently submitted a protective order, but defendants object to how it is drafted. Specifically,

defendants object to two portions of plaintiff’s proposed order: (1) plaintiff would permit the source

code to be provided to multiple unnamed “Independent Advisors”; (2) the proposed order does not

reflect certain security measures, employed by plaintiff’s expert, which plaintiff described at oral

argument.

Case 3:05-cv-01940-MHP Document 125 Filed 03/29/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

The court agrees with defendants that the proposed order conflicts with plaintiff’s

representations at oral argument. In addition, the court finds that the number of hard copies

proposed by plaintiff—two for depositions and four for inclusion in expert reports—is excessive. 

Finally, the court finds that production of three electronic copies is also excessive. A single

electronic copy is sufficient.

The court therefore orders that plaintiff file, within five days of this order, an amended

proposal for the protective order reflecting the following changes:

1. Defendants are required to produce a single electronic copy, which will be kept either by

plaintiff’s attorneys or by Kendyl Roman, plaintiff’s expert.

2. The electronic copy must be maintained pursuant to the security scheme employed by Mr.

Roman, as described at oral argument for the motion to compel. Mr. Roman may, as plaintiff

described, place an electronic copy of the source code on the hard drive of a non-networked

computer.

3. Only three hard copies may be made of the source code, total. These are to be employed

both as deposition exhibits and as attachments to the expert report.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2006 _______________________________

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:05-cv-01940-MHP Document 125 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 2