Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02897/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02897-2/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

24/7 CUSTOMER, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LIVEPERSON, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02897-JST 

ORDER REGARDING ENTRY OF A 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Re: ECF No. 40

On October 14, 2015, the parties in this action filed a joint motion for entry of a protective 

order. ECF No. 40. The parties mostly agree about the proposed protective order that will govern 

the discovery but disagree about the notice provision on highly confidential information disclosed 

to experts. LivePerson proposes that the notice provision follow the protective order entered in 

the parties’ action in the Southern District of New York. This procedure permits disclosure of 

highly confidential information to an expert without disclosing of the identity of the expert so long 

as the expert “is not a current officer, director, or employee of a competitor of a Party or 

anticipated to become one.” Id. at 7. [24]/7 disagrees with this proposal and requests that the

notice provision track the Interim Model Protective Order, which requires that the party seeking 

disclosure first make a written request to the designating party. Id. at 5. The parties each 

submitted complete Protective Orders and request that the Court enter one of the proposed 

protective orders to govern discovery in this action. Id. at 2.

///

///

///

///

Case 3:15-cv-02897-JST Document 44 Filed 10/21/15 Page 1 of 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Entering [24]/7’s proposed order would create inconsistent obligations and potential 

confusion between the case before this Court and the case in New York. Accordingly, the Court 

enters the protective order proposed by LivePerson. See ECF 40-2, Ex. B. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02897-JST Document 44 Filed 10/21/15 Page 2 of 2