Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00986/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00986-18/pdf.json

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

---

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

Plaintiff relies on authority pertaining to the propriety of limiting counsel’s access to

confidential material. The issue before the Magistrate Judge, however, was the propriety of

limiting an expert’s access to such material. The Court expresses no opinion as to whether

the authority cited by plaintiff in its objection may support plaintiff’s request that Marina F.

Cunningham be granted access to confidential material in her capacity as counsel of

record, pursuant to § 7.3 of the Protective Order filed January 4, 2006, as that separate

issue is directly raised in plaintiff’s pending Motion for Admission of Marina F. Cunningham

Pro Hac Vice.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOVA MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTS,

LTD.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NANOMETRICS, INC.,

Defendants /

No. C-05-0986 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

OBJECTION TO SECOND DISCOVERY

ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiff Nova Measuring Instruments Ltd.’s Objection, filed

March 13, 2006, to Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman’s Second Discovery Order, and

plaintiff’s Supplement to Objection, filed March 17, 2006.

Having fully considered the matter, the Court hereby DENIES the objection for the

reason that plaintiff has failed to show the subject order is clearly erroneous or contrary to

law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (providing district court may reconsider magistrate’s

order where it has been shown to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law).1

Case 3:05-cv-00986-MMC Document 109 Filed 03/23/06 Page 1 of 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

2

To the extent plaintiff represents it would be amenable to having certain restrictions

placed on the expert in question, if such restrictions would allow plaintiff’s expert to obtain

access to confidential material, such accommodation was not presented to the Magistrate

Judge. In the event plaintiff is unable to obtain defendant’s consent to access in light of

plaintiff’s newly-proposed restrictions, the issue should be presented in the first instance to

the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00986-MMC Document 109 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 2