Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04330/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04330-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

MOUNT 

& STOELKER, P.C. 

RIVERPARK 

TOWER, SUITE 1650 

333

WEST SAN 

CARLOS STREET

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110-2740 

TELEPHONE (408) 279-7000 

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

Daniel S. Mount, Esq. (Cal. Bar No. 77517) 

Kathryn G. Spelman, Esq. (Cal. Bar No. 154512) 

Daniel H. Fingerman, Esq. (Cal. Bar No. 229683) 

Kevin M. Pasquinelli, Esq. (Cal. Bar No. 246985) 

Mount & Stoelker, P.C. 

RiverPark Tower, Suite 1650 

333 West San Carlos Street 

San Jose CA 95110-2740 

Phone: (408) 279-7000 

Fax: (408) 998-1473 

Email: dmount@mount.com 

 kspelman@mount.com 

 dfingerman@mount.com 

 kpasquinelli@mount.com 

Attorneys for Defendants Romi Mayder, Wesley Mayder, 

Silicon Test Systems Inc., and Silicon Test Solutions LLC 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California, San Jose Division 

VERIGY U.S. INC., a Delaware corporation 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ROMI OMAR MAYDER, an individual; 

WESLEY MAYDER, an individual; 

SILICON TEST SYSTEMS INC., a 

California corporation; SILICON TEST 

SOLUTIONS LLC, a California limited 

liability corporation, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:07-cv-04330 (RMW) (HRL) 

[Proposed] Order Regarding Verigy US, Inc.’s 

Motion to Compel and Setting Forth Protocol 

for Examination of Disk Drive 

Judge: Hon. Howard R. Lloyd 

Courtroom: 2 

Complaint Filed: August 22, 2007 

Trial Date: None Set 

: 

*E-FILED 10/24/2007* XXXXXX (MODIFIED BY THE COURT)

Case 5:07-cv-04330-RMW Document 82 Filed 10/24/07 Page 1 of 7
Case No. 5:07-cv-04330 (RMW) (HRL) Page 1 

[Proposed] Order Denying Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses 

MOUNT 

& STOELKER, P.C. 

RIVERPARK 

TOWER, SUITE 1650 

333

WEST SAN 

CARLOS STREET

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110-2740 

TELEPHONE (408) 279-7000 

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

Before the court is Verigy's motion to compel production of bit-for-bit copies or "mirror 

images" of two computer hard drives used by the defendants. The defendants did not oppose 

production of the hard drives. Instead, they opposed the simplistic relief sought on the motion — an 

order that they simply turn over the mirror image. 

Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was amended in 2006 to expressly allow 

discovery of electronically-stored information in addition to "documents" and "things." These 

amendments brought the Rule in line with modern discovery practice and did not substantively 

change the scope of discovery. The scope of discovery is still governed by Rule 26(b). 

Having reviewed the relevant caselaw, the court agrees that a simple turn-over order is 

inappropriate.1

 Instead, the court will order production of the hard drives under a protocol similar to 

that adopted by other courts but tailored to the needs of this case. This order is not intended to 

expand the scope of discovery beyond what is permitted by Rule 26(b). 

The protocol for production and searching of the hard drives is set forth below. The parties 

may amend this protocol by stipulation. (all days referred to are business days whether explicitly 

stated so or not) 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

There will be two tiers of discovery allowed. As to the relevant and properly discoverable 

material that had been maintained on the defendant’s computer (that is now on the mirror images) 

that is properly the subject of normal discovery (and is non-privileged and within rule 26) there will 

be a review of the hard drive with only a post-query post-creation opportunity by defense counsel to 

challenge the production. This material that will be subject to this more liberal examination is set 

forth in paragraphs 3a and 3b. As to material that had not previously been identified in specific rule 

 

1

 See e.g., In re Ford Motor Co., 345 F.3d 1315, 1317 (11th Cir. 2003); Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Welles, 60 F. Supp. 2d 

1050 (S.D. Cal. 1999); Rowe Entertainment Inc. v. William Morris Agency Inc., 205 F.R.D. 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); 

Hedenburg v. Aramark Am. Food Servs., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3443 (W.D. Wash. 2007); Simon Property Group L.P. 

v. MySimon Inc., 194 F.R.D. 639 (S.D. Ind. 2000); Ameriwood Industries Inc. v. Liberman, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

93380, 2006 WL 3585291 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 27, 2006); Balboa Threadworks Inc. v. Stucky, No. 05-1157-JTM-DWB, 2006 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29265, 2006 WL 763668 (D. Kan. 2006); McCurdy Group v. Am. Biomedical Group Inc., 9 Fed. 

Appx. 822 (10th Cir. 2001) 

Pursuant to this court's Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (being filed concurrently), the court enters the following protocol for discovery of defendants' hard drives. ===================================

Case 5:07-cv-04330-RMW Document 82 Filed 10/24/07 Page 2 of 7
Case No. 5:07-cv-04330 (RMW) (HRL) Page 2 

[Proposed] Order Denying Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses 

MOUNT 

& STOELKER, P.C. 

RIVERPARK 

TOWER, SUITE 1650 

333

WEST SAN 

CARLOS STREET

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110-2740 

TELEPHONE (408) 279-7000 

1

2

3

5

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

6

7

8

9

11

26 discovery requests, and not set forth in paragraph 3a and 3b below, there will be an opportunity 

for defense counsel to challenge the request for the production of the documents before they are 

queried from the computer mirror image. The details are provided below. 

1. The parties will agree to a third party technical expert (“TPTE”) to receive and conduct the 

examination of the mirror images of the two hard drives. Both Parties will contract with the third 

party technical expert and Verigy will pay his (or her) costs. The TPTE will be appointed as a 

special master, as an officer of the court. 

2. Defendants will turn over to the third party technical expert the mirror images of the two hard 

drives within 24 hours of contract signature with the third party technical expert. 

3. The third party technical expert will work in collaboration with Verigy's forensic consultant, Ms. 

Kris Haworth of FTI (or such other forensic consultant as Verigy may designate), in performing 

the examination of the mirror images as requested by Haworth (or such other forensic consultant 

as Verigy may designate). In other words, the third party technical expert will execute such 

examination of the mirror images as requested by Verigy's forensic consultant for only the queries 

shown in (3a and 3b) without prior challenge by Defendants 

a. Production of Computer Status Records 

i. Any record of any documents, or files deleted on or after 7-6-07 (for whatever 

reason). 

ii. Any record of how any documents or files were deleted after 7-6-07 (e.g. 

automatically by the operating system, browser, etc or by user commands) 

iii. Any record of any documents, or files copied or moved to another computer 

system. 

iv. A list of all documents, or files (or recoverable fragments of such) recorded on the 

disk drives that were created, copied, or modified before 9-22-06. 

===================================

Case 5:07-cv-04330-RMW Document 82 Filed 10/24/07 Page 3 of 7
Case No. 5:07-cv-04330 (RMW) (HRL) Page 3 

[Proposed] Order Denying Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses 

MOUNT 

& STOELKER, P.C. 

RIVERPARK 

TOWER, SUITE 1650 

333

WEST SAN 

CARLOS STREET

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110-2740 

TELEPHONE (408) 279-7000 

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

v. Any records related to installation or upgrades of the MS Windows operating 

system or software applications on the system (for example, but not limited to MS 

office or MS Outlook) 

vi. Any Microsoft Operating System Log Files. 

b. Relevant Content Queries 

i. 2019 Disclosure Items: All documents, or files (or recoverable fragments of such) 

on the disk drives containing any of the following text disclosed in Verigy’s 

Section 2019.210 disclosure: 

1. Related to Existing Patents: 

a. “US Pat. 6570397” 

b. “Timing calibration” 

c. “US Pat. 7147499” 

d. “Zero insertion force printed circuit assembly” 

e. “US Pat. 7106081” 

f. “Parallel calibration system” 

2. Related to Existing Patent Applications 

a. “Method and apparatus for a DDT contactor” 

b. “non-contact cleaning of electronics” 

c. “method for calibrating automated test equipment” 

d. “calibration system” 

e. “verification of electronic circuit testers” 

f. “Resource Matrix” 

g. “Allocating device testing resources” 

3. Other Know How 

a. MEMS switch 

===================================

Case 5:07-cv-04330-RMW Document 82 Filed 10/24/07 Page 4 of 7
Case No. 5:07-cv-04330 (RMW) (HRL) Page 4 

[Proposed] Order Denying Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses 

MOUNT 

& STOELKER, P.C. 

RIVERPARK 

TOWER, SUITE 1650 

333

WEST SAN 

CARLOS STREET

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110-2740 

TELEPHONE (408) 279-7000 

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

b. MEMS Switch Matrix 

c. Dynamic Allocation of Test Channel 

d. AC Calibration 

e. Relay Tree 

f. AC Calibration 

g. Low Jitter 

h. Verigy Matrix 

ii. All documents, or files (or recoverable fragments of such) on the disk drives that 

were created, copied or modified before 9-22-06 (the last day of employment 

being 9-21-06). 

iii. All email communications (or recoverable fragments of such) and any documents 

attached to those emails, between STS, STSI, or Mr. Mayder and any third parties 

prior to 9-22-06. (the last day of employment being 9-21-06). 

These inquires within sections 3a and 3b, there will be the post query, but pre production 

opportunity to challenge as set forth in paragraphs 4 through 9 below. 

For inquiries outside the scope of those described in 3a and 3b, Plaintiffs will propound upon the 

third party technical expert and concurrently upon Defendant’s counsel a list of inquiries. The 

defendants will have two business days to object to the proposed inquiries. If a timely objection is 

made, the parties will meet and confer in good faith within one business day after service of the 

objection to attempt to reach an agreement. If no agreement is reached, the parties will jointly 

request a telephone conference with Judge Lloyd to make a determination. Once an agreement is 

reached regarding the appropriateness of the inquiry the process continues with steps four through 

nine below. 

defendants shall have No later than the next business day, defendants shall serve their objections (if any) no later than the nextthe dispute will be resolved in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraph 6 (below). =================================== For these

Case 5:07-cv-04330-RMW Document 82 Filed 10/24/07 Page 5 of 7
Case No. 5:07-cv-04330 (RMW) (HRL) Page 5 

[Proposed] Order Denying Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses 

MOUNT 

& STOELKER, P.C. 

RIVERPARK 

TOWER, SUITE 1650 

333

WEST SAN 

CARLOS STREET

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110-2740 

TELEPHONE (408) 279-7000 

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

5

11

12

13

14

15

16

18

19

20

21

22

24

25

26

27

28

10

17

23

4. [Pre-Production Privilege Review and Log Creation] Information resulting from the third party 

technical expert's examination of the hard drives as requested by Verigy's forensic consultant will 

be provided, with Bates number designations (for identification purposes), in the first instance to 

defense counsel. Defense counsel will, within 48 hours of receiving such information from the 

third party technical expert, review such information and identify in a format sufficient to validate 

the assertion of privilege, privacy or beyond the scope of rule 26 discovery, such portions of the 

information which should be withheld from review by Verigy and/or its forensic consultant. Such 

log shall be served by email to all counsel and the third party technical expert. 

5. [Additional Review Time for Large Volumes] In the event the volume of information produced to 

Defense counsel through the process described in paragraph 4 exceeds 2500 printed pages of 

material in any one instance, Defense counsel will have a total of 96 hours to review such 

information and identify in a format sufficient to validate the assertion of privilege or privacy or 

beyond the scope of rule 26 discovery, such portions of the information which should be withheld 

from review by Verigy and/or its forensic consultant. 

6. [Privilege Dispute Resolution] In the event there is a dispute concerning Defendants’ assertion of 

privilege or privacy or beyond the scope of rule 26 discovery, there shall be an expedited dispute 

procedure involving an immediate conference call with Judge Lloyd (or such referee as Judge 

Lloyd may designate) on the same day that counsel requests such a call -- or as soon as possible 

thereafter based on Judge Lloyd's or the designated referee's schedule. 

7. [Abusive Process Resolution] Verigy shall keep a record of all requests submitted to the third 

party forensics expert. In the event the third party technical expert believes that any Verigy 

request or the cumulative effect of multiple requests would result in an unduly burdensome 

volume of information or appears abusive of process, the third party technical expert may inform 

counsel for both parties and Defendants’ counsel may request an immediate conference call with 

Judge Lloyd (or such referee as Judge Lloyd may designate) on the same day that counsel 

a party may bring the matter to this court's attention. This court will, at its option and based on its availability, either set the matter for an expedited hearing or refer the dispute to a special master (with both sides to split the costs). shall bring the matter to this court's attention. ===================================the parties are unable to resolve If the parties are unable to resolve any dispute, the dispute will be resolved in accordance with

Case 5:07-cv-04330-RMW Document 82 Filed 10/24/07 Page 6 of 7
Case No. 5:07-cv-04330 (RMW) (HRL) Page 6 

[Proposed] Order Denying Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses 

MOUNT 

& STOELKER, P.C. 

RIVERPARK 

TOWER, SUITE 1650 

333

WEST SAN 

CARLOS STREET

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110-2740 

TELEPHONE (408) 279-7000

1

2

3

4

6

5

10

11

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

8

9

12

requests such a call -- or as soon as possible thereafter based on Judge Lloyd's or the designated 

referee's schedule and Verigy shall provide Judge Lloyd or the designated referee with the record 

of requests. 

8. [Report and Document Production] Information resulting from the third party' technical expert’s 

examination of the hard drives shall be turned over to Verigy and/or its forensic consultant by the 

third party technical expert, minus privileged or private matter or matter beyond the scope of rule 

26 discovery, within 24 hours of receiving notice from Verigy counsel either that there is no 

dispute concerning the privilege/privacy or beyond the scope of rule 26 discovery log or notice 

that such dispute has been resolved and the nature of the resolution. Defense counsel shall be 

copied on such communications. 

9. [Limited Time for Discovery] The foregoing process is limited to thirty (30) days from the day 

the mirror images are received by the third party technical expert. Verigy, through its forensics 

consultant, shall have the right to an ongoing examination of the mirror images of the hard drives 

through the foregoing protocol. In particular, Verigy shall not be limited to a single, one-time set 

of queries related to the examination of the mirror images of the hard drives, but may make 

repeated queries during the 30 day process. Verigy may ask the Court for additional time to 

complete the examination for good cause shown. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ___________________ _______________________________________________ 

October 24, 2007 HOWARD R. LLOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE =================================== the procedure set out in paragraph 6 (above).

Case 5:07-cv-04330-RMW Document 82 Filed 10/24/07 Page 7 of 7