Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01544/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01544-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(a) Injunction against Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZOOM IMAGING SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD ROE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19–cv–1544–WBS–KJN

ORDER

(ECF No. 96)

On March 24, 2020, the court held an informal telephonic hearing on the parties’ dispute 

regarding an attorney-eyes-only provision. (ECF No. 96.) For the reasons discussed at the 

hearing, the court denies plaintiff’s request mandating the blanket provision be included in the 

parties’ forthcoming protective order. The court agrees that inclusion of a ‘reserved-rights’ 

statement (see id. at 1:27-2:1) is appropriate. 

Should disputes arise in the future concerning sensitive information, the court encourages 

counsel to work together to protect the parties’ confidentiality. This may require limiting

distribution of the information to counsel, experts, or others. The court is available to resolve any 

impasses on an informal basis, following the procedures listed on chamber’s website.1

Dated: March 24, 2020

1

http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/5046/

Case 2:19-cv-01544-WBS-KJN Document 98 Filed 03/25/20 Page 1 of 1