Network Appliance Inc. v. Sun Microsystems Inc

Filing 355

STIPULATED ADDENDUM To First Amended Protective Order re 334 . Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on 6/15/09. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2009)

Case3:07-cv-06053-EDL Document334

Filed05/29/09 Page1 of 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
DLA PIPER US LLP
EAST PALO A L T O

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION NETWORK APPLIANCE, INC., Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, v. SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC., Defendant/Counterplaintiff. Plaintiff Network Appliance, Inc. ("Plaintiff"), Defendant Sun Microsystems, Inc. (collectively, "Defendant") and non-party Intel Corporation ("Intel"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to the following Addendum to the First Amended Protective Order ("Protective Order") in this action for the protection of "Highly Confidential" (as defined in Paragraph 9 of the Protective Order) documents of non-party Intel, whether produced or disclosed by Intel or by any party or third party, which may be revealed in connection with this action ("Intel Confidential Information"). WHEREAS, Intel is not a party to this litigation; and WHEREAS Intel wishes to protect all Intel Confidential Information which may be disclosed in this action by Intel or by any party or third party; The parties and Intel agree and stipulate to the following Addendum to the Protective Order ("Addendum"): 1. Notwithstanding paragraph 10 of the Protective Order permitting access to CASE NO. 3:07-CV-06053 EDL STIPULATED ADDENDUM TO FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER

"Highly Confidential" documents to designated in-house counsel, materials designated "Attorneys' Eyes Only-Non Party Intel" may only be disclosed to: (1) the court, jury, and court personnel; (2) outside counsel of record for the parties to this action, which category is limited to Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP on behalf of Plaintiff and DLA Piper US LLP on behalf of -1WEST\20296581.1 347155-000029

STIPULATED ADDENDUM TO FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER ­ USDC CASE NO. C-07-06053 EDL

Case3:07-cv-06053-EDL Document334

Filed05/29/09 Page2 of 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
DLA PIPER US LLP
EAST PALO A L T O

Defendant, including the partners, associates and employees of these firms; (3) non-party consultants and experts (as defined in paragraph 10(d) of the Protective Order) actually retained or employed by outside counsel of record to advise or to assist counsel in the preparation and/or trial of this action to the extent reasonably necessary to advise or to assist counsel in the preparation and/or trial of this action; and (4) outside vendors that provide photocopying, document processing, translation or graphics services to outside counsel to assist such counsel in the preparation and trial of this action. 2. In the event that a party plans to disclose Intel Confidential Information to an

expert (as defined by Paragraph 10(d) of the Protective Order), the party proposing such disclosure shall, at least five (5) business days prior to such disclosure, provide notice to Intel. If Intel objects to the disclosure of Intel Confidential Information to the expert, Intel will serve a written objection within five (5) business days of receipt of the information set forth above, which objection shall state the basis for Intel's objection. Intel and the party proposing disclosure shall confer in an attempt to resolve the objection. If Intel and the party proposing disclosure are not able to resolve the objection, Intel may file a motion in support of its objection within five (5) business days after such conference. If no motion is filed, Intel shall be deemed to have withdrawn its objection. In any motion pursuant to this paragraph, Intel shall bear the burden of proof of establishing that the expert should not have access to the Intel Confidential Information. No disclosure of Intel Confidential Information shall be made to the proposed expert until Intel and the party proposing disclosure resolve the matter, the objection is withdrawn, or the Court permits such disclosure. 3. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of the Protective Order, in the event that a

party wishes to elicit testimony or use or disclose documents or transcripts at trial, hearing or any other proceeding which contain or refer to Intel Confidential Information, the party shall request (i) that the Intel Confidential Information be filed under seal, (ii) that the portions of the record of any proceeding containing Intel Confidential Information be sealed; (iii) that persons other than outside counsel of record in this action (expressly excluding an in-house counsel of the parties),
WEST\20296581.1 347155-000029

STIPULATED ADDENDUM TO FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER ­ USDC CASE NO. C-07-06053 EDL

2

Case3:07-cv-06053-EDL Document334

Filed05/29/09 Page3 of 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
DLA PIPER US LLP
EAST PALO A L T O

outside consultants and experts (as defined by Paragraph 10(d) of the Protective Order), court personnel, jurors, and court reporters be excluded from the proceedings during the disclosure of Intel Confidential Information. 4. The party planning to use or disclose Intel Confidential Information during trial,

hearing or other proceeding shall provide written notice to Intel of such intent at least five (5) business days prior to the proceeding. Such notice shall be served on counsel for Intel, Theresa Sutton, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Silicon Valley Office, 1000 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025. 5. Notwithstanding any contrary provisions of the Protective Order, Intel

Confidential Information shall be used solely in preparation for the trial and/or appeal of the above-identified action. Intel Confidential Information shall not be used or disclosed at any other time or for any other purpose whatsoever. 6. Subject to the foregoing additional restrictions and limitations, Intel Confidential

Information shall be subject to the remaining terms of the original Protective Order in this case. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ///
WEST\20296581.1 347155-000029

STIPULATED ADDENDUM TO FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER ­ USDC CASE NO. C-07-06053 EDL

3

Case3:07-cv-06053-EDL Document334

Filed05/29/09 Page4 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 By

IT IS SO STIPULATED. Dated: May 29, 2009 By /s/ Patricia Young (pro hac vice) MATT POWERS EDWARD R. REINES JEFFREY G. HOMRIG JILL J. HO PATRICIA YOUNG (pro hac vice) WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP Counsel for Plaintiff, Network Appliance, Inc. Dated: May 29, 2009 By /s/ Carrie L. Williamson MARK D. FOWLER DAVID ALBERTI CHRISTINE K. CORBETT YAKOV M. ZOLOTOREV CARRIE L. WILLIAMSON Counsel for Defendant, Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Dated: May 29, 2009

/s/Theresa A. Sutton THERESA A. SUTTON Counsel for Non-Party Intel Corporation

UNIT ED

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP
EAST PALO A L T O

IT IS SO ORDERED Dated: June 15, 2009

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

WEST\20296581.1 347155-000029

STIPULATED ADDENDUM TO FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER ­ USDC CASE NO. C-07-06053 EDL

4

A

C

LI

FO

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Magistrate Judgee port h D. La Elizabet Judge

R NIA

OO IT IS S

RDERE

D

RT U O

NO

RT

H