Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02073/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02073-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYNERGY TECH & DESIGN INC. d/b/a

ROAD ARMOR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JIM TERRY, SANDY TERRY, JIM

MEEKINS, DIXIE MEEKINS, JD

DISTRIBUTING, and ROAD ARMOR USA,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-02073 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING

AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON JANUARY 29, 2007 AT 1:30 P.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such

authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiff’s emergency motion for entry of modified

protective order.

Case 3:06-cv-02073-JSW Document 91 Filed 01/29/07 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 parties shall have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

1. Could an expert determine the similarity of Terry’s prior drawings and the

subject drawings? (Where are Terry’s prior drawings?) Also, if an expert could

review the drawings and determine their similarity, why would the potential nondisclosure of the subject drawings to Terry affect his ability to establish a

defense?

2. Should the Court hold an evidentiary hearing and review the drawings in

camera? Should the Court refer this exercise to a Magistrate Judge or a courtappointed expert?

3. Would a bond insure the compliance/non-theft of Plaintiff’s alleged trade secret

information? (See In re Remington Arms Co., 952 F.2d 1029, 1033 (8th Cir.

1991).) If so, what amount would be appropriate?

4. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02073-JSW Document 91 Filed 01/29/07 Page 2 of 2