Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05528/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05528-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

STOEL RIVES LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SALT LAKE CITY

3:06-CV-005528 MHP -1- JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER

SaltLake-289550.1 0036547-00001 

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 

MARC T. RASICH (SB #174683) 

mtrasich@stoel.com 

TIMOTHY K. CONDE (Pro Hac Vice Pending) 

tkconde@stoel.com 

STOEL RIVES LLP

201 South Main Street, Suite 1100 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 

Telephone: (801) 328.3131 

Facsimile: (801) 578.6999 

PATRICIA D. DOUGLASS (SB #63518) 

pdouglass@cox.net 

98 Interpromontory Rd. 

Great Falls, VA 22066-3219 

Telephone: (703) 759-3586 

Facsimile: (703) 935-4823 

Attorneys for Defendants Wayne Drizin, Michael 

Gardiner, Electronic Plastics Corporation, and A 

Card Company 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

E-SMART TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Nevada 

corporation; and IVI SMART 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware 

corporation,, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

WAYNE DRIZIN; MICHAEL GARDINER; 

ELECTRONIC PLASTICS COMPANY, a 

California corporation; and A CARD 

COMPANY, a California corporation,, 

Defendants. 

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER 

Case No. 06-CV-05528 MHP 

The Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel 

Plaintiffs e-Smart Technologies, Inc. and IVI Smart Technologies, Inc. (collectively, 

“e-Smart”), and defendants Wayne Drizin, Michael Gardiner, Electronic Plastics Company, and 

A Card Company (collectively, “Consultants”) hereby agree as follows: 

Case 3:06-cv-05528-MHP Document 40 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 1 of 4
 Case 3:06-cv-05528-MHP Document 42 Filed 11/03/06 Page 1 of 4
STOEL RIVES LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SALT LAKE CITY

3:06-CV-005528 MHP -2- JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER 

SaltLake-289550.1 0036547-00001 

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. Consultants agree that they will not represent themselves as representatives of 

e-Smart. 

2. Consultants agree to send to e-Smart, at e-Smart’s expense, all property belonging 

to e-Smart (including all computers, designs, schematics and peripherals, and any computer 

copies thereof) in Consultants’ possession or control within 10 days after receiving from e-Smart 

an address to which to send the property and a Fed Ex or similar account number to which to bill 

the costs of shipping. Notwithstanding the above, e-Smart recognizes that (1) there is some 

e-Smart property in Indonesia and Korea; and (2) laptop computers containing personal, 

confidential or privileged material which cannot be returned within 10 days, but which will be 

returned as soon as practicable but within 30 days of the date this proposed order is filed with the 

Court. Consultants’ counsel may retain one copy of any returned documents, files, and computer 

drives through the end of this litigation including any appeals subject to the terms of the 

protective order contemplated in paragraph 7, below. 

3. Consultants’ counsel will provide e-Smart’s counsel with a log of all computer 

files claimed to be personal, confidential or privileged no later than 10 days after the return of the 

information referenced in paragraph 2, above. 

4. E-Smart agrees that within 10 days after this proposed order is filed with the 

Court, it will provide Consultants with a complete list, including without limitation, all designs 

and specifications, of what it contends are e-Smart’s protectable trade secrets related to its smart 

card business, as set forth in the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) 

section 2019.210. 

5. Provided e-Smart has complied with California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) 

section 2019.210 and paragraph 4, above, Consultants agree that within 10 days after e-Smart 

provides its disclosures as required by paragraph 4, they will provide e-Smart a reasonably 

Case 3:06-cv-05528-MHP Document 40 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 2 of 4
 Case 3:06-cv-05528-MHP Document 42 Filed 11/03/06 Page 2 of 4
STOEL RIVES LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SALT LAKE CITY

3:06-CV-005528 MHP -3- JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER 

SaltLake-289550.1 0036547-00001 

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 

particular description of the technology they are using, if any, which they contend is publicly 

available, known to those skilled in the art, or has been developed at their own risk and expense 

and/or independent of e-Smart. 

6. Within 10 days after this proposed order is filed with the Court, the parties shall 

submit to the Court an agreed schedule of a course of expedited discovery which will commence 

after the disclosure referenced in paragraph 5, above, said discovery to be limited to the factual 

issues raised by the papers filed in support of our opposition to the motion for a temporary 

retraining order. 

7. The parties agree that the disclosures referenced in paragraphs 4 and 5, above, will 

be subject to a Protective Order in a form to be developed and agreed to by counsel. Among 

other things, the Protective Order shall allow either party to designate information and data as 

“Confidential,” limiting disclosure to the parties, their attorneys and experts, or as “Attorneys 

Eyes Only,” limiting highly sensitive information to review only by the other parties’ attorneys 

(not engaged in the prosecution of any patents on behalf of the party) or independent third party 

experts with no prior affiliation with any of the parties. Additionally, the parties agree that 

neither is waiving any rights or counterclaims that they may have against each other or any other 

person or entity with respect to their trade secrets by the disclosure of such information. 

8. Consultants agree that they will not use any of e-Smart’s proprietary or trade secret 

technology, if any; any technology directly derived from any of e-Smart’s proprietary or trade 

secret technology, if any, or any technology obtained from any of e-Smart’s employees, former 

employees, or consultants that such parties obtained during his or her employment or consultancy 

with e-Smart that is e-Smart’s proprietary or trade secret technology, if any. 

Case 3:06-cv-05528-MHP Document 40 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 3 of 4
 Case 3:06-cv-05528-MHP Document 42 Filed 11/03/06 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:06-cv-05528-MHP Document 40 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 4 of 4

October 31, 2006

Case 3:06-cv-05528-MHP Document 42 Filed 11/03/06 Page 4 of 4