Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc.

Filing 57

Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc.

Doc. 57

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 57

Filed 10/05/2006

Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTE ORDER
CASE NO.: C06-2361 WHA (JCS) CASE NAME: Netflix v. Blockbuster MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOSEPH C. SPERO DATE: Oct. 4, 2006 TIME: 30 mins COURTROOM DEPUTY: Karen Hom COURT REPORTER: Connie Kuhl COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT: William O'Brien
PROCEEDINGS

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF: Jeff Chanin & Gene Paige

9 9 9 X 9

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE DISCOVERY CONFERENCE STATUS CONFERENCE RE:

9

FURTHER SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE RE: Joint Statement re: Proposed Protective Order [docket no. 51] OTHER: FOR

CASE CONTINUED TO: NOTES:

Court ruled that there will be no access for now to "Attorneys Eyes Only" material to any in-house counsel. There will be no special provision on the source code which can be designated "Attorneys' Eyes Only". With respect to patent prosecution, any firm that receives "Attorneys' Eyes Only" information in this case agrees that they will not participate in patent prosecution work for the clients in this case for a period ending two (2) years after the case is concluded, including all appeals, with the following two exceptions: In the event that the opposing party in this case initiates a contested proceeding before the PTO, which is not included as patent prosecution work, and shall not count as patent prosecution work delivering copies or lists of prior art to client or counsel. Plaintiff will re-draft the proposed protective order
cc:
Chambers

Dockets.Justia.com