Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01315/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01315-32/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
TSI Incorporated
Counter-claimant
Aleksandr L. Yufa
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

United States District Court

Northern District of California

ALEKSANDR L. YUFA,

Plaintiff,

v.

TSI INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: CV 09-01315-KAW

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT TSI 

INCORPORATED’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Dkt. No. 152.)

On March 25, 2009, Plaintiff Dr. Aleksandr L. Yufa filed this action alleging that 

Defendant TSI Incorported’s predecessor-in-interest infringed on U.S. Patent No. 6,346,983 (“the 

‘983 Patent”). On December 12, 2013, Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 

No. 152.) 

Upon review of the parties’ papers and having carefully considered their arguments and 

the relevant legal authority, the Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral 

argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment for the reasons set forth below.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Dr. Aleksandr L. Yufa is an inventor, who has applied for and acquired five 

separate U.S. patents. Filed on January 29, 1998, and entitled “Methods and Wireless 

Communicating Particle Counting and Measuring Apparatus,” the ‘983 Patent, which is at the 

center of this lawsuit, concerns the methods and devices for determining the existence, size, and 

quantity of airborne particles by utilizing a light beam. ‘983 Patent col. 1 l.5-10. As originally 

issued, the ‘983 Patent contained eight claims in total. 

Plaintiff filed this action on March 25, 2009, alleging that Defendant’s predecessor-ininterest, Adams Instruments, infringed on Plaintiff’s ‘983 Patent by manufacturing and selling 

Case 4:09-cv-01315-KAW Document 176 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 10
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

wireless communication products believed to be utilizing technologies covered by the ‘983 

Patent. (Original Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 4; First Am. Compl., “FAC,” Dkt. No. 91 ¶ 16.) Plaintiff 

accuses three categories of TSI products of infringement: Non-Optical Devices, Pulse Height 

Detection Devices, and Pulse Integration Devices. (See Def.’s Mot. for Summary J., “Def.’s 

Mot.,” Dkt. No. 152 at 1.) The TSI products that stand accused are AEROTRAK Handheld 

Particle Counters 9303, 9306; AEROTRAK Nanoparticle Aerosol Monitor 9000; AEROTRAK 

Portable Particle Counters 9310, 9110, 9350, 9500, 9510, 9550; AEROTRAK Remote Particle 

Counters 7110, 7201, 7301, 7301-P, 7310, 7501, 7510; BIOTRAK Real-Time Viable Particle 

Counter 9510-BD; Optical Particle Sizer 3330; and DustTrak. (FAC ¶ 16.)

The case was stayed pending the reexamination of the ‘983 Patent by the U.S. Patent and 

Trademark Office (PTO). (Dkt. No. 37.) Ultimately, only claims 6-8 survived the PTO’s 

reexamination process with amendment. One such amendment was the addition of the words 

“without using a reference voltage” in claim 6. (‘983 Patent Reexamination Certificate, Decl. of 

Courtland Merrill in support of Def.’s Mot. for. Summary J., “Merrill Decl.,” Ex. 3, Dkt. No. 153-

3 at 25, col. 2 l. 1-2 (issued Aug. 14, 2012). On September 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a first 

amended complaint alleging infringement of the surviving, amended claims. (See FAC ¶ 12.)

On November 22, 2013, the Court held a claim construction hearing. The claim 

construction order was issued on February 24, 2014. (Dkt. No. 168.)

On December 12, 2013, Defendant filed the instant motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 

No. 152.) Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 23, 2013. (Dkt. No. 156.) Defendant filed 

its reply on January 6, 2014. (Dkt. No. 159.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when, after adequate discovery, there is no genuine 

issue as to material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56; see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). Material facts are those 

that might affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 

(1986). A dispute as to a material fact is “genuine” if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable 

jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. 

Case 4:09-cv-01315-KAW Document 176 Filed 05/21/14 Page 2 of 10
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of the 

basis for its motion, and of identifying those portions of the pleadings and discovery responses 

that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 

U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Where the moving party will have the burden of proof at trial, it must 

affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving 

party. Southern Calif. Gas. Co. v. City of Santa Ana, 336 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir.2003).

On an issue where the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, it may 

discharge its burden of production by either (1) by “produc[ing] evidence negating an essential 

element of the nonmoving party's case” or (2) after suitable discovery “show[ing] that the 

nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential element of its claim or defense to 

discharge its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.” Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Fritz 

Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Celotex, 477 U.S. 324-25. 

In the patent infringement context, “[i]n the light of Celotex, we conclude that nothing 

more is required [of a defendant] than the filing of a summary judgment motion stating that the 

patentee had no evidence of infringement and pointing to the specific ways in which accused 

systems did not meet the claim limitations.” Exigent Tech., Inc. v. Atrana Solutions, Inc., 442 

F.3d 1301, 1308-09 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the opposing party must then set forth 

specific facts showing that there is some genuine issue for trial in order to defeat the motion. See

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. “A party opposing summary judgment may not 

simply question the credibility of the movant to foreclose summary judgment. “Instead, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and by its own evidence set forth specific facts 

showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Far Out Prods., Inc. v. Oskar, 247 F.3d 986, 997 

(9th Cir. 2001) (citations and quotations omitted). The non-moving party must produce “specific 

evidence, through affidavits or admissible discovery material, to show that the dispute exists.” 

Bhan v. NMS Hosps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir. 1991). Conclusory or speculative 

testimony in affidavits and moving papers is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact 

Case 4:09-cv-01315-KAW Document 176 Filed 05/21/14 Page 3 of 10
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

to defeat summary judgment. Thornhill Publ’g Co., Inc. v. Gen. Tel. & Electronics Corp., 594 

F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979).

In deciding a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all justifiable inferences in its favor. Anderson,

477 U.S. at 255; Hunt v. City of Los Angeles, 638 F.3d 703, 709 (9th Cir. 2011).

III.DISCUSSION

In his first amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is liable to him for direct 

infringement of the reexamined patent at issue in this case. (FAC ¶ 34.) 

TSI argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on the grounds of noninfringement and 

that the ‘983 Patent is invalid for indefiniteness pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶¶ 2, 6.

1

A. Noninfringement

TSI argues that its products do not infringe on the amended ‘983 Patent, “because none of 

the products includes each limitation required by claim 6, the sole independent claim.” (Def.’s 

Mot. at 1.) To establish infringement, a plaintiff “must prove that the accused device embodies 

every limitation in the claim, either literally or by a substantial equivalent.” Conroy v. Reebok 

Int'l, Ltd., 14 F.3d 1570, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(citations omitted). Claim 6 survived patent 

reexamination as follows:

6. An apparatus for counting and measuring particles, providing a 

processing of an output of a light detecting means, said apparatus comprises: 

a current-voltage conversion means, providing conversion of said output 

of said light detecting means to voltage value signals, and wherein said output is 

effectively indicative of a size of said particles; 

an amplifying means, providing an amplification of said voltage value 

signals; 

an analog-digital form pulse duration conversion means, providing 

conversion of each of said voltage value signals to a digital form pulse without 

using a reference voltage to convert each said voltage value signals, wherein each 

said digital form pulse has a duration, which is adequate to a baseline duration of 

the appropriate output of said light detecting means; 

a strobe pulse generating means, providing generating of strobe pulses; 

 

1

The ‘983 Patent was filed before the effective date of the Leahy Smith America Invents Act 

(“AIA”), which applies to patent applications filed on or after September 16, 2012. Therefore, all 

citations to § 112 refer to the pre-AIA statute, which contains paragraph numbers rather than 

lettered subsections.

Case 4:09-cv-01315-KAW Document 176 Filed 05/21/14 Page 4 of 10
5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

a conjunction means, forming strobe pulse packages by conjunction of 

each said digital form pulse and said strobe pulses; 

a selecting, sorting and counting means, providing the selection and 

sorting of said strobe pulse packages by an identical quantity of said strobe pulses 

within each of said strobe pulse packages.

(‘983 Patent Reexamination Certificate, col. 1 l. 20 - col. 2 l. 17.) For the purposes of summary 

judgment, the pertinent limitations in claim 6 are “light detecting means,” “without using a 

reference voltage,” “strobe pulses” and “strobe pulse packages.”

1. Light Detecting Means

In its motion, TSI concedes that its Pulse Height Detection Devices and Pulse Integration 

Devices “use a light detecting means to measure and count particle size.” (Def.’s Mot. at 8-9.) As 

discussed infra, however, these devices also require the use of a reference voltage, and so do not 

embody every limitation in claim 6. See infra Part III.A.2.

TSI contends that none of its remaining “accused Non-Optical Devices include ‘light 

detecting means,’ [because]... [t]he Non-Optical Devices do not measure and count particles by 

light output.” (Def.’s Mot. at 1.) To support its assertion, TSI provides the declaration of Ricky 

Holm, an Electrical Engineering Manager at TSI with over 20 years of professional experience in 

research, development and manufacturing of particle measuring equipment. (Decl. of Ricky Holm 

in Support of Def.’s Mot. for Summary J., “Holm Decl.,” Dkt. No. 154 ¶ 2.) Mr. Holm has been 

involved in TSI’s development of multiple products and projects, including optical particle 

counters, and is a co-inventor of U.S. Patents. (Holm Decl. ¶ 2.) Mr. Holm reviewed the ‘983 

Patent and the Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, as well as the first amended complaint, and the 

documents attached to the same. (Holm Decl. ¶ 3.) Mr. Holm states that TSI’s only accused 

Non-Optical Device, AEROTRAK 9000, does not use a light detecting means to count and 

measure particles. (Holm Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. B.) Instead, “[t]he AEROTRAK 9000 converts 

electrometer measurements of the charges of sample particles into surface area concentration 

units of square micrometers per cubic centimeter.” (Holm Decl. ¶ 14.)

In response, Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence to the contrary, as his opposition 

consists almost entirely of conclusory allegations regarding TSI’s credibility and Mr. Holm’s 

“personal interest of employment and the company’s process and prosperity.” (See Pl.’s Opp’n, 

Case 4:09-cv-01315-KAW Document 176 Filed 05/21/14 Page 5 of 10
6

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Dkt. No. 156 at 9.) Further, after examining the AEROTRAK 9000, Plaintiff could not identify 

how it uses a light detecting means, and instead only reiterated his conclusory allegation that it 

generally infringed on claims 6, 7, and 8 of the ‘983 Patent. (Yufa Dep., Merrill Decl., Ex. 2 at 

120-21.)

Accordingly, since the AEROTRAK 9000 does not use a light detecting means, as 

required by claim 6, and Plaintiff does not provide any admissible evidence to the contrary, the 

Court finds that it does not infringe on the ‘983 Patent.

2. Without Using a Reference Voltage

During reexamination, the ‘983 Patent was amended to require that the patented system 

convert a light detector’s amplified output into a digital signal “without using a reference 

voltage.” (‘983 Patent Reexamination Certificate, col. 2 l. 1-3.)

In its motion, TSI asserts that Plaintiff is unable to establish infringement as to the 

remaining, Optical Devices. (Def.’s Mot. at 13.) TSI has two categories of Optical Devices: 

Pulse Height Detection Devices and Pulse Integration Devices. (Def.’s Mot. at 8.) While the 

Optical Devices use a light detecting means, they also require the use of a “reference voltage” to 

convert analog-digital form pulse value signals to digital form pulses. (Def.’s Mot. at 13; Holm. 

Decl. ¶¶ 15-19.) It is the requisite inclusion of a reference voltage that negates Plaintiff’s 

infringement claims. (Def.’s Mot. at 13.) Again, to support its assertion, TSI provides the 

declaration of Mr. Holm. 

a. Pulse Height Detection Devices

According to Mr. Holm, in the Pulse Height Detection Devices, “[r]eference voltages are 

used in at least two ways: (1) to establish the voltage resolution of an analog-to-digital converter 

and (2) to establish “binning” thresholds of comparator devices.” (Def.’s Mot. at 13:23-25; Holm 

Decl. ¶ 15.) In his declaration, Mr. Holm explains that each of TSI’s Pulse Height Detection 

Devices2 contain an analog-digital converter, but conversion requires “an analog reference voltage 

to prescribe the voltage span.” (Holm Decl. ¶ 16.) Other Pulse Height Devices, referred to as 

 

2 AEROTRAK Handheld Particle Counters 9306-01, 9306-02, 9306-V, 8220; AEROTRAK 

Portable Particle Counters 9110, 9310-01, 9350-01, 9510-01, 8240, 8260; AEROTRAK Remote 

Particle Counter 7110; Optical Particle Sizer 3330; and DustTrak. (Holm Decl. ¶ 16.)

Case 4:09-cv-01315-KAW Document 176 Filed 05/21/14 Page 6 of 10
7

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

“comparator devices,” use one or more “comparators” to determine the size range of the 

corresponding particle.3(Def.’s Mot. at 15.) TSI’s comparators “have configurable reference 

voltages corresponding to one of several possible amplitude levels of a detected pulse, referred to 

as a ‘binning’ level.” Id. Accordingly, these Pulse Height Detection Devices—both those that use 

and do not use comparators—require a reference voltage to perform its function.

Without providing any evidence in support of his opposition, Plaintiff generally alleges 

that “TSI’s products unconditional infringe the patent-in-suit, because they convert the analog 

signal to a digital form pulse ‘without using a reference voltage to convert’ analog[] signal to 

digital form pulse.” (Pl.’s Opp’n at 9:8-10.) Such conclusory allegations, however, are 

insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact to avoid summary judgment.

b. Pulse Integration Devices

TSI asserts that all of its remaining accused Pulse Integration Devices4 use pulse area to 

size particles instead of pulse amplitude. (Def.’s Mot. at 15, Holm Decl. ¶ 18.) These products 

use a “reference threshold” to prevent false indications of a particle, and, therefore, only “indicate

the presence of a pulse if the voltage signal exceeds the reference threshold value.” (Holm Decl. ¶ 

19.) This necessitates the use of a reference voltage for a set point, as the integration operation is 

initiated only after the signal exceeds the reference threshold voltage, and ceases when the signal 

drops before the reference threshold value. (Def.’s Mot. at 15; Holm Decl. ¶ 19.)

Again, Plaintiff’s opposition is limited to conclusory allegations of infringement and fails 

to identify any admissible evidence outside of the pleadings to show that the accused products 

detect particles without the use of a reference voltage. Plaintiff claims that TSI uses Pulse Width 

Modulation, rather than a reference voltage, that uses an analog value “as a digital pulse where 

the on time is proportional to the value....” (FAC ¶ 18.) Plaintiff cites Exhibits H and I in his first 

amended complaint as evidence of TSI’s use of Pulse Width Modulation, but those documents are 

 

3

The Pulse Height Devices referred to as “comparators” are: AEROTRAK Handheld Particle 

Counter 9303; AEROTRAK Remote Particle Counters 7201, 7301, 7301-P, 7310, 7501, and 

7510. 

4

TSI’s Pulse Integration Devices include: AEROTRAK Handheld Particle Counters 9306-03, 

9306-04, 9306-V2; AEROTRAK Portable Particle Counters 9310-2, 9350-02, 9500-1, 9510-2, 

9550-02, 9350-3; and BIOTRAK Real-Time Viable Particle Counter 9510-BD.

Case 4:09-cv-01315-KAW Document 176 Filed 05/21/14 Page 7 of 10
8

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

not conclusive. (See Pl.’s Opp’n at 8.) Exhibit H is a document of unknown authorship titled 

“Introduction to Interfaces Used in Facility Monitoring Systems,” which contains an overview of 

many different components, including Pulse Width Modulation, and broadly cites to internet 

sources such as Wikipedia. (FAC, Ex. H.) The document does not identify TSI in any way, either 

by way of letterhead and/or logo, or by citing to TSI or any of its products. See id. Exhibit I is a 

TSI document titled “Facility Monitoring System Design Recommendations.” (FAC, Ex. I.) 

Exhibit I concerns larger system networking, including the use of a local area network and IP 

addresses, and the single paragraph on remote particle counters does not refer to Pulse Width 

Modulation at all and provides no evidence that the accused products detect particles without a 

reference voltage. Id. at 8.

Accordingly, TSI contends that it does not use Pulse Width Modulation, and that the 

evidence previously identified by Plaintiff fails to show that the accused products incorporate the 

technology. (Def.’s Mot. at 16; Holm Decl. ¶ 16.) The Court agrees that Plaintiff has failed to 

produce, or otherwise identify, any admissible evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact 

in regards to whether the accused products operate without the use of a reference voltage and 

whether they use Pulse Width Modulation.

In fact, Defendant has provided evidence that each of the particle counters used in 

connection with the accused products uses a reference voltage to convert analog particle signals 

into digital form pulses, and, therefore, do not embody a limitation of the ‘983 Patent. Further, 

Plaintiff cannot resort to the doctrine of equivalents, because the addition of “without a reference 

voltage” was required to survive reexamination and preserve patentability. Consequently, there 

can be no infringement, because infringement requires the accused device to embody every 

limitation of the asserted patent claims. See Conroy v. Reebok Int’l Ltd., 14 F.3d 1570, 1573 (Fed. 

Cir. 1994). 

3. Strobe Pulses and Strobe Pulse Packages

Since all of the accused devices were addressed above and found not to embody all of the 

limitations in claim 6, the Court need not address whether the accused devices form strobe pulses 

or strobe pulse packages.

Case 4:09-cv-01315-KAW Document 176 Filed 05/21/14 Page 8 of 10
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

B. Indefiniteness

TSI contends that claim 6 is invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, for 

failure to identify the applicable structure in the means-plus-function claims. Since the Court is 

finding that there is no infringement, it need not address indefiniteness. 

C. Plaintiff fails to create a genuine issue of material fact.

In his opposition, Plaintiff fails to present any evidence that would create a genuine issue 

of material fact to defeat Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. A dispute is material where 

its resolution might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law, and is genuine if the 

evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to return a verdict in favor of the non-moving party. 

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. 

After the moving party has met its burden of stating that the patentee has no evidence of 

infringement and pointing to the specific ways in which the accused systems do not meet the 

claim limitations, the non-moving party must go beyond the pleadings and identify specific facts 

that show a genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 

574, 586-87 (1986). A genuine dispute over a material fact only exists if there is sufficient 

evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute, requiring a judge or jury to resolve the differing 

versions of the truth. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 253. 

Here, Plaintiff fails to present any additional evidence beyond his conclusory contention 

that TSI’s products infringe. (Pl.’s Opp’n at 9.) Other than generally citing to Exhibits H and I 

attached to his first amended complaint, discussed above, Plaintiff’s opposition consists almost 

entirely of conclusory allegations regarding TSI’s credibility, which does not create a genuine 

issue of material fact. (See Pl.’s Opp’n at 1:13-16.) Indeed, when ruling on a motion for summary 

judgment, the Court “may not evaluate the credibility of a witness or weigh the evidence.”

California Steel & Tube v. Kaiser Steel Corp., 650 F.2d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Neely 

v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 584 F.2d 341, 344 (9th Cir. 1978)). Instead, the Court 

is tasked with determining whether the non-moving party has produced sufficient evidence to 

support its position. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.

Case 4:09-cv-01315-KAW Document 176 Filed 05/21/14 Page 9 of 10
10

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Further, despite his protestations to the contrary, Plaintiff is not entitled “to study TSI’s 

products (e.g., handheld particle counters, etc.) at least by schematic diagrams and drawings.” 

(Pl.’s Opp’n at 9:17-18.) Plaintiff is only entitled to review those documents pertaining to the 

accused products. At the tutorial, Plaintiff acknowledged that he was given the opportunity to 

review documents pertaining to the accused products when he went to TSI’s headquarters for the 

document production. Plaintiff makes no showing that additional evidence actually exists, so any 

lack of diligence on his part is not grounds to deny the motion for summary judgment. See 

Chance v. Pac-Tel Teletrac Inc., 242 F.3d 1151, 1161 (9th Cir. 2001).

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff has failed to go beyond the pleadings and identify 

sufficient evidence supporting the existence of a genuine factual dispute that would preclude 

summary judgment as to whether Defendant’s accused products use both a reference voltage and 

a light detecting means.

IV.CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, TSI’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED on 

the grounds of non-infringement, as Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence to support his claims 

for patent infringement. Specifically, none of TSI’s accused products embody all of the

limitations found in claim 6 of the ‘983 Patent. 

The Clerk shall close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2014 ___________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:09-cv-01315-KAW Document 176 Filed 05/21/14 Page 10 of 10