Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-04414/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-04414-11/pdf.json

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

---

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

 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING INSPECTION PROTOCOL FOR 

PERSONAL COMPUTING DEVICES 

Case No. 3:17-cv-04414-JST 

1327911 

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 

ROBERT A. VAN NEST - # 84065 

rvannest@keker.com 

LEO L. LAM - # 181861 

llam@keker.com 

MATTHEW M. WERDEGAR - # 200470 

mwerdegar@keker.com 

MICHELLE YBARRA - # 260697 

mybarra@keker.com 

JAY RAPAPORT - # 281964 

jrapaport@keker.com 

BAILEY W. HEAPS - # 295870 

bheaps@keker.com 

DAVID J. ROSEN - # 296139 

drosen@keker.com 

KATIE LYNN JOYCE - # 308263 

kjoyce@keker.com 

ANNA PORTO - #319903 

aporto@keker.com 

633 Battery Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 

Telephone: 415 391 5400 

Facsimile: 415 397 7188 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ZSCALER, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

SYMANTEC CORPORATION and 

SYMANTEC LIMITED, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

ZSCALER, INC., 

Defendant. 

 Case No. 3:17-cv-04414-JST 

JOINT STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING 

INSPECTION PROTOCOL FOR 

PERSONAL COMPUTING DEVICES 

Judge: Honorable Jon S. Tigar 

Date Filed: June 22, 2017 

Trial Date: Not set 

Case 3:17-cv-04414-JST Document 187 Filed 05/10/19 Page 1 of 9
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

 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING INSPECTION PROTOCOL FOR 

PERSONAL COMPUTING DEVICES 

Case No. 3:17-cv-04414-JST 

1327911 

Plaintiffs Symantec Corp. and Symantec Ltd. (“Symantec”), Defendant Zscaler, Inc. 

(“Zscaler”), and Lee Dolsen (“Dolsen”) stipulate to the following inspection protocol for forensic 

images of Dolsen’s personal computing devices: 

1. Zscaler shall provide to Symantec’s consultant fully intact copies of the forensic 

images corresponding to evidence identifiers A00333-1-GB1-E015, A00333-1-GB1-E013, and 

A00333-1-GB 1-E002 (collectively, the “Digital Media”), so that Symantec’s consultant may 

perform an inspection and analysis of the Digital Media for purposes of preparing a rebuttal 

forensic expert declaration, as set forth in the Stipulated Request and Order Extending and 

Adding Deadlines for Assignor Estoppel Discovery (ECF No. 168).

2. Symantec’s consultant must be a “Qualified Consultant” or “Qualified Expert” as 

defined in § 8(a) of the Protective Order (ECF No. 75). After Symantec proposes a consultant to 

be a Qualified Consultant or Qualified Expert, Zscaler shall have the right to object under the 

procedures and within the timeframe set forth in § 8(b) of the Stipulated Protective Order. 

Zscaler will provide the Digital Media to Symantec’s consultant within two (2) business days of 

the expiration of Zscaler’s deadline to object or move to bar disclosure of the Digital Media or, if 

Zscaler so moves, within two (2) business days of an order overruling Zscaler’s objections. 

3. Symantec’s consultant shall maintain the Digital Media in a secure facility 

operated by Symantec’s consultant and, except as directed otherwise by joint stipulation of the 

parties to this Stipulation or order of the Court, shall retain custody of the Digital Media until this 

case has come to an end (i.e., after this case has been dismissed and after all appeals have been 

exhausted, assuming there are any appeals). Symantec’s consultant shall treat the Digital Media 

as Zscaler’s and Dolsen’s “Protected Material” under the Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 

75), except as provided for herein. Symantec’s consultant shall not disclose or permit any 

disclosure of the contents of the Digital Media to anyone, including the parties to this Stipulation 

and their attorneys or agents-directly or indirectly, except as provided for herein. 

4. Symantec’s consultant specifically acknowledges and agrees—both on his or her 

own behalf and on behalf of any employee of Symantec’s consultant that is engaged in the device 

inspection process set forth herein—to be bound by the terms of both this Stipulation and the 

Case 3:17-cv-04414-JST Document 187 Filed 05/10/19 Page 2 of 9
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

 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING INSPECTION PROTOCOL FOR 

PERSONAL COMPUTING DEVICES 

Case No. 3:17-cv-04414-JST 

1327911 

Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 75). Symantec’s consultant shall be given a copy of the 

Stipulated Protective Order. Further, Symantec’s consultant shall be given a copy of this 

Stipulation and shall sign a certification in the form of Exhibit A attached hereto. Such signed 

and completed certification shall be provided to counsel for Zscaler and Dolsen. 

5. Other than as specified in this agreement, neither Zscaler nor Dolsen, nor anyone 

working on their behalf, shall have any control over the analysis performed. The parties to this 

Stipulation and their counsel shall not have the right to be present during such analysis. 

6. This stipulation will not affect Symantec’s right to seek document discovery under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. 

7. Symantec’s consultant will limit its analysis of the Digital Media to searching for 

the following information: 

a. Documents authored by Blue Coat Systems, Inc., which shall be defined as 

documents that are marked, stamped, or otherwise labeled with the logo of Blue Coat Systems or 

the phrases “Blue Coat Copyright, “Blue Coat Trademark,” “Blue Coat Internal Use Only,” Blue 

Coat Official Channel Partner Use Only,” “Blue Coat Property,” or other substantially similar 

phrases; 

b. Emails sent from or received by “lee.dolsen@bluecoat.com,” 

“lee.dolsen@gmail.com,” and “ldolse@yahoo.com” after February 1, 2012 and referring to “Blue 

Coat,” “BlueCoat,” “BC,” or “Dropbox”; 

c. Files and metadata related to files that are or have been stored in a Dropbox 

application or client installed on the Digital Media; and 

d. Internet search history information related to URLs containing the term 

“Dropbox.” 

8. From the date that Symantec’s consultant receives the Digital Media, Symantec’s 

consultant shall have ten (10) days to conduct its inspection. Should Symantec need more time to 

review the Digital Media, Zscaler will be provided with reasonable notification of that need, and 

the parties to this Stipulation will meet and confer to discuss that need and whether additional 

time will be granted. Any additional time granted for Symantec’s consultant’s inspection will be 

Case 3:17-cv-04414-JST Document 187 Filed 05/10/19 Page 3 of 9
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

 3

 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING INSPECTION PROTOCOL FOR 

PERSONAL COMPUTING DEVICES 

Case No. 3:17-cv-04414-JST 

1327911 

provided in kind for Zscaler’s and Dolsen’s review. Neither a request for nor an agreement to 

provide additional time for Symantec’s consultant to conduct an inspection shall itself be good 

cause for extension of any case deadlines. 

9. To the extent necessary for Symantec’s consultant to identify the material 

described in paragraph 7, Symantec may propose search terms for Symantec’s consultant to apply 

to text-searchable data in the Digital Media. Consistent with the Order Regarding Discovery, 

Including Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (ECF No. 74), “[f]ocused terms, rather 

than over-broad terms” shall be employed. Following receipt of Symantec’s proposed search 

terms, Zscaler and Dolsen shall each have two (2) days in which to object to Symantec’s expert 

providing Symantec hit counts for any proposed search terms. Absent objection, Symantec’s 

consultant may provide hit count reports to the parties to this Stipulation. In the event of any 

objection, the parties to this Stipulation shall meet and confer in good faith on modifications to 

the proposed terms. If the parties are unable to resolve the disagreement, Symantec may seek the 

Court’s assistance in resolving the matter. 

10. Any information or materials derived by Symantec’s consultant from its inspection 

and analysis of the Digital Media that it wishes to provide to counsel for Symantec in order for 

such information or materials to be used as discovery materials in this litigation shall be subject to 

the following procedures: 

a. As used herein, “Findings” shall mean any information or materials derived 

by Symantec’s consultant from its analysis of the Digital Media that Symantec’s consultant 

wishes to convey to counsel for Symantec for purposes of review, or that Symantec’s consultant 

wishes to rely on for its own conclusion. 

b. So that Zscaler and Dolsen may identify material that is privileged, work 

product, not relevant to this case, not within the scope of paragraph 7, or otherwise protected 

against disclosure to Symantec or Symantec’s counsel, if any exists, and to facilitate Zscaler’s 

and Dolsen’s ability to prepare a privilege log and/or appropriately designate documents as 

“Protected Material” under Stipulated Protective Order in this matter (ECF No. 75), the Findings 

shall be produced to counsel for Zscaler and Dolsen for review ten (10) days after initiation of the 

Case 3:17-cv-04414-JST Document 187 Filed 05/10/19 Page 4 of 9
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

 4

 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING INSPECTION PROTOCOL FOR 

PERSONAL COMPUTING DEVICES 

Case No. 3:17-cv-04414-JST 

1327911 

inspection. Within ten (10) days of receiving the Findings from Symantec’s consultant, counsel 

for Zscaler and Dolsen shall produce to Symantec’s consultant and counsel for Symantec a 

privilege log which complies fully with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(b)(5)(A), identifying those Findings that Zscaler and/or Dolsen maintain(s) are subject to the 

attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, are not relevant to this case, not within the 

scope of paragraph 7, or are otherwise not subject to disclosure. Should Zscaler or Dolsen need 

more time to review the Findings, Symantec will be provided with reasonable notification of that 

need, and the parties to this Stipulation will meet and confer to discuss that need and whether 

additional time will be granted. As stated above, any additional time granted for Symantec’s 

consultant’s inspection will be provided in kind for Zscaler’s and Dolsen’s review. 

c. After Zscaler and Dolsen have reviewed the Findings, Symantec’s

consultant may provide to counsel for Symantec all Findings which are not designated by Zscaler 

or Dolsen as privileged, work product, not relevant to this case, not within the scope of paragraph 

7, or otherwise protected against disclosure to Symantec or Symantec’s counsel within the ten 

(10) day period, or such other term as agreed under paragraphs 8 and 10(b) above. 

d. Within five (5) business days of receiving the log(s), Symantec shall notify 

Zscaler and Dolsen of any challenges to their privilege, work product, relevance, or scope 

assertions, after which the parties to any dispute shall jointly and immediately request an in 

camera hearing with the Court to resolve the dispute(s). While the dispute is pending, none of the 

disputed Findings will be provided to Symantec. 

e. The deadlines set forth in paragraphs 10(b), 10(c), and 10(d) may be 

extended by agreement of the parties to a dispute over privilege, work product, personal, or scope 

assertions or, if the parties to a dispute are unable to reach agreement after meeting and 

conferring, any party to such a dispute may seek relief from the Court. 

f. Prior to disclosure of the Findings to Symantec’s attorneys, Zscaler’s or 

Dolsen’s attorneys may designate the Findings, where appropriate, as “Protected Material” as 

provided by the Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 75). 

Case 3:17-cv-04414-JST Document 187 Filed 05/10/19 Page 5 of 9
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

 5

 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING INSPECTION PROTOCOL FOR 

PERSONAL COMPUTING DEVICES 

Case No. 3:17-cv-04414-JST 

1327911 

11. The parties to this Stipulation agree that the actions described herein shall not 

constitute a waiver of any claim of attorney-client privilege, work product protection, or any other 

protection against disclosure, or any rights to claw back or to confidentiality under the Stipulated 

Protective Order (ECF No. 75) or otherwise, with respect to (a) the Findings on the Digital 

Media, or (b) the conduct, notes, searches, search terms, communications, or any other act 

performed by any consultant or attorney in connection with the Digital Media. In addition, the 

fact that Symantec’s consultant has been permitted to view, copy, export, summarize, take notes 

of, or otherwise access any particular material contained on the Digital Media shall not give rise 

to any inference that such material constitutes relevant discovery in this litigation or that such 

material is not privileged, work product, or otherwise protected from disclosure. 

12. Employees of Symantec’s consultant that are engaged in the device inspection 

process set forth herein shall not communicate with any employee of Symantec’s consultant not 

engaged in the device inspection process regarding the content of any Findings prior to their 

disclosure to Symantec’s counsel pursuant to this Stipulation, and shall not reveal or discuss with 

anyone (including any employee of Symantec’s consultant not engaged in the device inspection 

process or any counsel for Symantec), at any time, the content of any Findings designated by 

Zscaler or Dolsen as privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure, unless and until such 

Findings are subsequently determined to be subject to disclosure pursuant to this Stipulation, 

either by agreement of the parties to this Stipulation or by order of the Court. Further, any 

employee of Symantec’s consultant who was engaged in the device inspection process shall not 

reveal or discuss with anyone (including any other employee of Symantec’s consultant or any 

counsel for Symantec) any content of the Digital Media that (1) falls outside the scope of the 

inspection as described in paragraph 1; or (2) falls outside of the Findings provided to Zscaler’s 

and Dolsen’s counsel for review. 

13. The production of Findings pursuant to this Stipulation, including the withdrawal 

of objections to production of Findings, shall not give rise to any inference that such material is 

relevant to any issue in this action, including the issue of assignor estoppel. 

Case 3:17-cv-04414-JST Document 187 Filed 05/10/19 Page 6 of 9
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

 6

 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING INSPECTION PROTOCOL FOR 

PERSONAL COMPUTING DEVICES 

Case No. 3:17-cv-04414-JST 

1327911 

14. At the end of the litigation, or when otherwise directed to do so by the parties to 

this Stipulation or the Court, Symantec’s consultant will certify under penalty of perjury that it 

has complied with the agreed-upon protocol, that it has maintained and will continue to maintain 

the strict confidentiality of any data on the Digital Media and that all Digital Media has been 

returned or destroyed. 

15. This Stipulation may be executed through multiple counterparts, each of which 

shall be deemed an original. Facsimile and e-mail signed copies shall be deemed the equivalent 

of original signed documents. 

Dated: May 10, 2019 

By: 

BAKER BOTTS LLP 

/s/ James Williams 

 KURT M. PANKRATZ 

CHAD C. WALTERS 

JAMES WILLIAMS 

HARRISON RICH 

MORGAN E. GRISSUM 

CASEY L. SHOMAKER 

WAYNE O. STACY 

JENNIFER C. TEMPESTA 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

SYMANTEC CORP. AND SYMANTEC 

LTD. 

Dated: May 10, 2019 

By: 

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 

/s/ Jay Rapaport 

 ROBERT A. VAN NEST 

LEO L. LAM 

MATTHEW M. WERDEGAR 

MICHELLE YBARRA 

JAY RAPAPORT 

BAILEY W. HEAPS 

DAVID J. ROSEN 

KATIE LYNN JOYCE 

ANNA PORTO 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

ZSCALER, INC. 

Case 3:17-cv-04414-JST Document 187 Filed 05/10/19 Page 7 of 9
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

 7

 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING INSPECTION PROTOCOL FOR 

PERSONAL COMPUTING DEVICES 

Case No. 3:17-cv-04414-JST 

1327911 

Dated: May 10, 2019 

By: 

LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP 

/s/ Evangeline Burbidge 

 EVANGELINE BURBIDGE 

 Attorneys for LEE DOLSEN 

ATTESTATION

I certify under Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) that all signatories to this document concur in its 

filing. 

Dated: May 10, 2019 /s/ Jay Rapaport 

 JAY RAPAPORT 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

DATED: ____________________ ___________________________________ 

 HONORABLE JON S. TIGAR 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

May 10, 2019

Case 3:17-cv-04414-JST Document 187 Filed 05/10/19 Page 8 of 9
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

 8

 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING INSPECTION PROTOCOL FOR 

PERSONAL COMPUTING DEVICES 

Case No. 3:17-cv-04414-JST 

1327911 

Exhibit A

I, ___________________________, acknowledge and declare that I have received a copy 

of the Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Inspection Protocol for Personal Computing Devices 

(“Stipulation”) in Symantec Corp. v. Zscaler, Inc., Case No. 3:17-CV-04414-JST in the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of California. Having read and understood the 

terms of the Stipulation, I agree to be bound by the terms of the Stipulation and consent to the 

jurisdiction of said Court for the purpose of any proceeding to enforce the terms of the 

Stipulation. 

Name of individual: _____________________________________________________ 

Present occupation/job description: _________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Name of Company or firm: ________________________________________________ 

Address: _______________________________________________________________ 

Dated: ______________________________ 

________________________________________ 

Signature 

Case 3:17-cv-04414-JST Document 187 Filed 05/10/19 Page 9 of 9