Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01346/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01346-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

EXPRESS DIAGNOSTICS INT’L, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BARRY M. TYDING, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

AND RELATED CROSS ACTION

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-1346 JW (PVT)

FURTHER ORDER RE FORM OF

PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING

THE HANDLING OF CONFIDENTIAL

INFORMATION

This court previously ordered the parties to submit either a stipulated form of protective

order, or else their respective proposed forms of protective order. Only Plaintiff submitted a

proposed form of protective order by the date set by the court (see Docket No. 154). However, the

proposed form that Plaintiff submitted is incomplete in that it does not include the caption and case

number for this case on the first page, it does not elect whether or not to include the optional

provisions that are set off in brackets, and it does not include the case name and number on lines 7

and 8 of Exhibit A to the proposed form of order. Further, because the parties have not stipulated to

the form of order, the form of order should not be worded as a stipulation. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than May 30, 2008, Plaintiff shall e-file a revised

proposed form of protective order that corrects the deficiencies noted above.

Case 5:06-cv-01346-JW Document 192 Filed 05/05/08 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

ORDER, page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pending entry of the final form of protective order, the

terms of Plaintiff’s proposed form of order shall govern, except for the optional provisions. If, prior

to entry of the final form of protective order, either party wishes to disclose to its House Counsel or

its Experts any information that any other Party has designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” that party shall first meet and confer with the Designating Party

regarding whether the optional provisions shall apply. Absent agreement of the parties or further

order of this court, no disclosure of such information to House Counsel or Experts shall occur.

Dated: 5/5/08

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-01346-JW Document 192 Filed 05/05/08 Page 2 of 2