Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04374/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04374-26/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

Contrary to defendants’ argument, the Court does not read the Order as requiring

disclosure of “metadata” not reflecting an opinion conveyed to defendants by counsel. 

(See Order at 8:11 (“What is not discoverable is legal analysis that was not communicated

to the client.”).)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CELERITY, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant

 v.

ULTRA CLEAN TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS

AND SERVICE, INC.

Defendant/Counterclaimant

and

ULTRA CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.

Defendant /

No. C-05-4374 MMC

(Consolidated with C-05-3560 MMC)

ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE LARSON’S

ORDER FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2007

Before the Court are defendants’ objections, filed March 9, 2007, to Magistrate

Judge James Larson’s Order, filed February 28, 2007.

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

reason defendants have 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

To the extent defendants may be arguing that plaintiff, in light of the Order, is

requesting discovery that defendants believe is outside the scope of said Order, e.g.,

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 178 Filed 03/22/07 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

discovery concerning patents as to which defendants have not asserted an advice-ofcounsel defense, defendants may seek appropriate relief from Judge Larson, if the parties,

after meeting and conferring, are unable to resolve any such dispute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 178 Filed 03/22/07 Page 2 of 2