Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04161/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04161-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

CASE NO. C07-04161 WHA

-1-

STIPULATION REGARDING DISCOVERY

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

[COUNSEL LISTED ON SIGNATURE PAGE]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

QUANTUM CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. C07-04161 WHA

STIPULATION REGARDING 

DISCOVERY AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Honorable William H. Alsup

United States District Judge

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

Case 3:07-cv-04161-WHA Document 29 Filed 12/07/07 Page 1 of 4
CASE NO. C07-04161 WHA

-2-

STIPULATION REGARDING DISCOVERY

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

Riverbed Technology, Inc. ("Riverbed") and Quantum Corporation ("Quantum") 

respectfully request that the Court enter the following stipulation the parties have reached regarding 

discovery in this action.

1

The parties will adhere to the Court's Supplemental Order Setting Initial 

Case Management Conference in Civil Cases Before Judge Alsup ("Supplemental Order") (Docket 

No. 14) and the discovery provisions therein. However, pursuant to Paragraph 12 of the 

Supplemental Order, the parties hereby agree to clarify and modify certain aspects of the 

Supplemental Order as follows: 

1. Privilege Log Requirements. 

The parties are not required to list the following documents or communications on 

their privilege logs: (1) documents or communications dated after Quantum's initial filing of this 

lawsuit; (2) intra-firm documents or communications (e.g., communications taking place within 

litigation counsel's law firm) generated before or after Quantum's initial filing of this lawsuit; and (3) 

communications between a party and its opinion counsel that occurred after the obtainment of any 

final opinion letters regarding patent issues relevant to this action. 

Each party shall provide a privilege log within two weeks of the date of its first initial 

obligation to respond to document requests in this action. The initial privilege log shall list all 

documents or communications for which a claim of privilege or work product is made that the party 

is aware of at the time the initial privilege log is produced. The parties shall promptly supplement 

their initial privilege log if they become aware of additional documents or communications subject 

to a claim of privilege or work product. Privilege logs shall provide the information required 

sections (a)-(d) in Paragraph 17 of the Supplemental Order. Adherence to this procedure shall not be 

deemed a waiver of any privilege or protection. 

1

Several of the following discovery agreements were included in the parties' Joint Case 

Management Statement and raised during the November 29, 2007 Case Management Conference. 

During that conference, the Court indicated that such agreements between the parties were 

permissible and would be enforced by the Court if in writing. 

Case 3:07-cv-04161-WHA Document 29 Filed 12/07/07 Page 2 of 4
CASE NO. C07-04161 WHA

-3-

STIPULATION REGARDING DISCOVERY

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

Paragraph 17(b) of the Supplemental Order may be fulfilled by the following 

statement (or something substantially similar) from the party responding to the discovery requests: 

"[Party] certifies that adequate steps were taken to ensure the confidentiality of the document or 

communication and that to the best of [Party's] knowledge no unauthorized persons received the 

document or communication." 

2. Drafts of Expert Reports. 

Paragraph 23 of the Supplemental Order shall be modified to provide that nothing 

shall preclude an expert from working on and updating a continuous version of an expert report 

without preserving interim drafts thereof even if the expert has discussions with litigation counsel

while doing so. 

3. Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions. 

Paragraph 24(b) of the Supplemental Order shall be modified to provide that when 

one individual is deposed in both his capacity as a corporate designee and as an individual, the 

testimony need not be separately transcribed so long as a clear statement is made on the record, and 

acknowledged on the record by counsel representing the witness, indicating that the questioning will 

thereafter be directed to the witness in his individual instead of corporate capacity, or vice versa. 

Paragraph 24(b) shall be modified to provide that any deposition pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) shall count as only one deposition, regardless of how many 

individuals the company-deponent designates to give testimony as to the various topics noticed, 

unless the testimony of any one designee lasts more than four hours, in which case that designee's 

testimony will count as a separate deposition against the deposing party's total allotment.

Case 3:07-cv-04161-WHA Document 29 Filed 12/07/07 Page 3 of 4
CASE NO. C07-04161 WHA

-4-

STIPULATION REGARDING DISCOVERY

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

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this action, through their respective counsel of record, 

AGREE TO AND HEREBY STIPULATE to the foregoing.

Dated: December 6, 2007 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & 

HEDGES, LLP

/s/ Todd M. Briggs

Todd M. Briggs

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant,

RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY, INC.

Dated: December 6, 2007 SHEPPARD MULLIN

/s/ Amar Thakur

Amar Thakur

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant

QUANTUM CORPORATION

I, Todd M. Briggs, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to

file this document. Pursuant to General Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that counsel for Quantum has 

concurred in this filing.

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: _________________

Honorable William H. Alsup

United States District Judge U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

December 7, 2007

Case 3:07-cv-04161-WHA Document 29 Filed 12/07/07 Page 4 of 4