Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02619/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02619-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 400
Nature of Suit: State Reapportionment
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 1 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ZORAN CORPORATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MEDIATEK, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 04-02619 RMW (PVT)

 C 04-4609 RMW (PVT

ORDER RE HANDLING OF

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AT

DEPOSITIONS PENDING ENTRY OF

A PROTECTIVE ORDER; AND RE

DISPUTE AS TO SUBJECT MATTER

SCOPE OF DEPOSITIONS

On Friday, December 9, 2005, the parties advised the court they have a dispute over the

duration of certain depositions set to take place in Taiwan the week of December 12, 2005.1 The

court initially set the matter to be heard on December 13, 2005, and instructed the parties to each file

a brief statement of their position regarding that dispute no later than 2:00 p.m. on December 12,

2005. On the morning of December 12, 2005, Plaintiff contacted the court regarding another dispute

which had arisen in connection with the depositions in Taiwan. The parties informed the court that

dispute related to the protection of confidential information that may be disclosed during the

deposition. Defense counsel noted that the attorney who was defending the deposition was already

Case 5:04-cv-02619-RMW Document 408 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 Despite the lack of authorization for filing briefing on this issue, Defendants included

briefing on this issue in their December 12, 2005 filing. The court then authorized Plaintiff to respond

to the unauthorized portions of the brief.

3

It appears from the transcript of the December 12, 2005 deposition that the parties agree

experts may see “Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only”materials. If any party objects to disclosure of

information to experts, they must immediately seek modification of this order.

ORDER, page 2

on his way back from Taiwan, so the court set the hearing for that dispute for December 13, 2005, as

well. The court did not request, nor authorize, any briefing in connection with this second dispute. 

The parties both filed briefs by 2:00 p.m. on December 12, 2005.2 Having reviewed those briefs, the

court now finds it appropriate to issue this order.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pending entry of a protective order to govern the handling

of confidential information in this matter, all information disclosed during depositions shall be

treated as “Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only,” and may be disclosed only to the parties’ counsel of

record in this matter and the parties’ retained experts.3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the dispute regarding the subject matter scope of the Rule

30(b)(6) depositions on technical topics is not properly before the court. (The court granted only a

request to address a dispute regarding the temporal duration of the deposition at the hearing on

December 13, 2005.) If Defendants wished to obtain relief from the subject matter scope of the

depositions, it was incumbent upon them to timely move for a protective order. See, e.g.,

FED.R.CIV.PRO. 37(d) (party’s failure to appear and testify at its deposition “may not be excused on

the ground that the discovery sought is objectionable unless the party failing to act has a pending

motion for a protective order as provided by Rule 26(c)”). The deposition notices were served on

October 28, 2005. Defendants offer no reasonable excuse for failing to file a motion for protective

order sufficiently in advance of the December 12, 2005 deposition to allow briefing and hearing of

that dispute.

Dated: 12/13/05

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-02619-RMW Document 408 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 2