Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 42

Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al

Doc. 42

Case 3:05-cv-04158-MHP

Document 42

Filed 06/01/2006

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
COOLEY GODWARD LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW PALO A L T O

COOLEY GODWARD LLP STEPHEN C. NEAL (No. 170085) ([e-mail]) RICARDO RODRIGUEZ (No. 173003) ([e-mail]) MICHELLE S. RHYU (No. 212922) ([e-mail]) Five Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY and Counterclaim Defendant THOMAS MERIGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, v. ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, ET AL., Defendants. ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, ET AL., Counterclaimants, v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY; AND THOMAS MERIGAN, Counterclaim Defendants.

Case No. C 05 04158 MHP [PROPOSED] ORDER RE INTERVIEWING WITNESSES

727928 v1/PA

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE INTERVIEWING WITNESSES CASE NO. C-05-04158 MHP

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:05-cv-04158-MHP

Document 42

Filed 06/01/2006

Page 2 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
COOLEY GODWARD LLP
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW PALO A L T O

The Court held a telephonic conference on May 23, 2006. Upon hearing the Parties' respective positions relating to the number of individuals identified who may have knowledge or information relevant to the first phase of this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) Each Party shall be permitted to take up to ten (10) depositions in the ownership

phase of the case; (2) Each Party is authorized to contact any individual who has been identified in initial

disclosures as potentially having knowledge or information relevant to the ownership phase of this case and to interview that individual in order to ascertain whether the individual should be formally deposed in this case, with the exception of the named inventors; (3) Any such individual is hereby relieved of any contractual obligations that might

otherwise prevent the individual from discussing confidential information with any Party, provided that: (a) Any confidential information disclosed by the individual to a Party shall be

treated as confidential information under the Protective Order entered in this case on May 19, 2006; (b) Upon contacting any such individual for the purpose of an interview, a

Party shall provide the individual a copy of the Protective Order and this Order; (c) For individuals not identified as being represented by counsel, the

contacting Party shall inform the individual that he or she may have the option of having counsel present during the interview; if counsel is requested, the interview shall not continue until requested counsel is present; and (d) For individuals identified as being represented by counsel, contact shall be

through opposing counsel before any interview is conducted. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: HONORABLE MARILYN HALL PATEL United States District Court Judge
727928 v1/PA

1.

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE INTERVIEWING WITNESSES CASE NO. C-05-04158 MHP