Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01544/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01544-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(a) Injunction against Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

---

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

1 Case No. 2:19-CV-01544-WBS-KJN

STIPULATION REGARDING ELECTRONIC SERVICE; ORDER

Zoom v Roe 19-

1544.stip e-service

David A. Garcia CA Bar No. 218356

david.garcia@ogletreedeakins.com

Graham M. Hoerauf CA Bar No. 307649

graham.hoerauf@ogletree.com

Carlos Bacio CA Bar No. 328466

carlos.bacio@ogletree.com

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & 

STEWART, P.C.

Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor

695 Town Center Drive

Costa Mesa, CA 92626

Telephone: 714-800-7900

Facsimile: 714-754-1298

Attorneys for Plaintiff Zoom Imaging Solutions, Inc.

Thomas A. Woods, Esq.

Nicholas D. Karkazis, Esq.

STOEL RIVES LLP

500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: 916-447-0700

Facsimile: 916-447-4781

thomas.woods@stoel.com 

chris.russell@stoel.com 

corey.day@stoel.com

Attorneys for Defendants

EDWARD ROE and POWER BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY, LLC

[ADDITIONAL COUNSEL ON NEXT PAGE]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZOOM IMAGING SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD ROE; MAXWELL RAMSAY; 

JON CROSSEN; CORINNE FUERST; 

ANDREW ALSWEET; KEVIN TOON; 

JASON PEEBLER; ABIGAIL NEAL; 

POWER BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY LLC; 

BRYAN DAVIS; MAURA LOPEZ; 

JEFFREY ORLANDO; JESSICA HINTZ 

and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:19-CV-01544-WBS-KJN

STIPULATION REGARDING ELECTRONIC 

SERVICE; ORDER

Complaint Filed: August 9, 2019

Trial Date: None Set

Judge: Hon. William B. Shubb

Magistrate Judge: Kendal J. Newman

Case 2:19-cv-01544-WBS-KJN Document 102 Filed 04/07/20 Page 1 of 5
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 Case No. 2:19-CV-01544-WBS-KJN

STIPULATION REGARDING ELECTRONIC SERVICE; ORDER

Zoom v Roe 19-

1544.stip e-service

Martin N. Jensen, Esq.

Jeffrey A. Nordlander, Esq.

PORTER SCOTT, APC

350 University Avenue, Suite 200

Sacramento, CA 95825

Telephone: 916-929-1481

Facsimile: 916-927-3706

mjensen@porterscott.com

jnordlander@porterscott.com

Attorneys for Defendants

MAX RAMSAY, erroneously sued as MAXWELL RAMSAY, JON CROSSEN, CORINNE 

FUERST, ANDY ALSWEET, erroneously sued as ANDREW ALSWEET, KEVIN TOON, JASON 

PEEBLER, ABIGAIL NEAL, BRYAN DAVIS, JESSICA HINTZ, MAURA LOPEZ, and 

JEFFREY ORLANDO

Case 2:19-cv-01544-WBS-KJN Document 102 Filed 04/07/20 Page 2 of 5
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

3 Case No. 2:19-CV-01544-WBS-KJN

STIPULATION REGARDING ELECTRONIC SERVICE; ORDER

Zoom v Roe 19-

1544.stip e-service

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

Plaintiff Zoom Imaging Solutions (“Plaintiff”), and Defendants Edward Roe; Maxwell 

Ramsay; Jon Crossen; Corinne Fuerst; Andrew Alsweet; Kevin Toon; Jason Peebler; Abigail Neal; 

Power Business Technology LLC; Bryan Davis; Maura Lopez; Jeffrey Orlando; and Jessica Hintz, 

by and through their counsel of record, hereby consent to electronic service of documents pursuant 

to Rule 5(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including discovery and other papers filed 

in the matter of Zoom Imaging Solutions v. Edward Roe, et al., United States District Court, Eastern 

District of California case no. 2:19-CV-01544-WBS-KJN.

1. Service can be made by email to the following email addresses:

a. For service on Plaintiff:

david.garcia@ogletreedeakins.com 

graham.hoerauf@ogletree.com

carlos.bacio@ogletree.com

b. For service on Defendants Power Business Technology, LLC and Edward Roe

thomas.woods@stoel.com 

nicholas.karkazis@stoel.com 

c. For service on Defendants Maxwell Ramsay; Jon Crossen; Corinne Fuerst; 

Andrew Alsweet; Kevin Toon; Jason Peebler; Abigail Neal; Bryan Davis; 

Maura Lopez; Jeffrey Orlando; and Jessica Hintz:

mjensen@porterscott.com

jnordlander@porterscott.com

2. Notice of changes of email addresses, or counsel to be added to or removed from 

electronic service, will be sent to counsel for all parties.

3. Pursuant to Rule 5(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, electronic service 

will be effective “sending it to a registered user by filing it with the court's electronic-filing system 

or sending it by other electronic means that the person consented to in writing—in either of which 

events service is complete upon filing or sending, but is not effective if the filer or sender learns that 

it did not reach the person to be served”. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(2)(E) (emphasis added).

Case 2:19-cv-01544-WBS-KJN Document 102 Filed 04/07/20 Page 3 of 5
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

4 Case No. 2:19-CV-01544-WBS-KJN

STIPULATION REGARDING ELECTRONIC SERVICE; ORDER

Zoom v Roe 19-

1544.stip e-service

4. Pursuant to Rule 6(4)(E) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any document that 

is served electronically between 12:00 a.m. and 11:59:59 p.m. on a court day shall be deemed served 

on that court day, except that any document that is served electronically on a non-Court day shall be 

deemed served on the next court day. Email service will not be deemed effective, however, if the 

sending party receives an error message notifying the sending party that transmittal of the email was 

not successful.

5. Emails containing attachments greater than 10MB will be served electronically by or 

through Defendants or Plaintiff’s counsel’s file-sharing website.

6. To the extent either the sending or receiving party experiences technical issues that 

prevent the receiving party from receiving the email, or the sending party from sending the email, 

then the party experiencing the technical issue will notify the other party as soon as possible. The 

parties agree that they will work together to ensure that the receiving party timely receives any 

documents filed including by, as necessary, sending the document by facsimile or personal service. 

/ / 

/ / / 

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-01544-WBS-KJN Document 102 Filed 04/07/20 Page 4 of 5
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

5 Case No. 2:19-CV-01544-WBS-KJN

STIPULATION REGARDING ELECTRONIC SERVICE; ORDER

Zoom v Roe 19-

1544.stip e-service

If, however, the technical issue prevents timely service, the parties will work together to 

extend or modify the time for responding to the email as necessary.

SO STIPULATED.

DATED: March 30, 2020 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & 

STEWART, P.C.

By: /s/ David A. Garcia

David A. Garcia

Graham M. Hoerauf

Carlos Bacio

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Zoom Imaging Solutions, Inc.

DATED: March 30, 2020 STOEL RIVES LLP

By: /s/ Nicholas D. Karkazis

Thomas A. Woods, Esq.

Nicholas D. Karkazis, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendants

EDWARD ROE and POWER BUSINESS 

TECHNOLOGY, LLC

DATED: March 30, 2020 PORTER SCOTT, APC

By: /s/ Jeffrey A. Nordlander

Martin N. Jensen, Esq.

Jeffrey A. Nordlander, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendants

MAX RAMSAY, erroneously sued as 

MAXWELL RAMSAY, JON CROSSEN, 

CORINNE FUERST, ANDY ALSWEET, 

erroneously sued as ANDREW ALSWEET, 

KEVIN TOON, JASON PEEBLER, ABIGAIL 

NEAL, BRYAN DAVIS, JESSICA HINTZ, 

MAURA LOPEZ, and JEFFREY ORLANDO

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(E), IT IS SO 

ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2020

zoom.154

Case 2:19-cv-01544-WBS-KJN Document 102 Filed 04/07/20 Page 5 of 5