Fortinet, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc. et al

Filing 168

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting 165 Stipulation.(dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2015)

Download PDF
Case3:13-cv-05831-EMC Document165 Filed06/26/15 Page6 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 1 2 3 FORTINET, INC., a corporation Case No. 3:13-cv-05831-EMC-DMR Plaintiff, 4 vs. 5 SOPHOS, INC., a corporation, MICHAEL 6 VALENTINE, an individual, and JASON CLARK, an individual. 7 Defendants. 8 [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING FORTINET'S REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION 9 SOPHOS INC. and SOPHOS LTD., corporations, 10 Counterclaim Plaintiffs, vs. 11 12 FORTINET, INC., a corporation, Counterclaim Defendant. 13 14 15 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, the Court hereby orders that: [To Mirror the 16 Stipulation] 17 1) Sophos will provide by end of businesses (5:00 PM Pacific) on June 29, 2015 to Fortinet's 18 vendor Stroz Friedberg's San Francisco office, all forensic images in possession from the Former 19 Fortinet Employees3 responsive to Fortinet's Requests for Inspection, including but not limited to 20 "personal laptops," "Sophos laptops," smartphones and USB data transfer devices; 21 2) Sophos will provide by end of businesses (5:00 PM Pacific) on July 3, 2015 to Fortinet's 22 vendor Stroz Friedberg's San Francisco office, all devices responsive to the Requests and not 23 previously imaged by Sophos within the last six months; 24 25 3 As defined by the Requests, the "Former Fortinet Employees" includes Michael Valentine, Kendra Krause, Robert 26 Gattis, Craig Bradshaw, David DeHaven, Jason Clark, Christopher (Dean) Schroll, Jason Acosta, Benjamin Ellering, Ryan 27 28 Archer, and Dolph Smith. 5 __________________________________________________________________________________ 04880-00001/6921513.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE AMENDED INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS Case No.: 3:13-cv-05831-EMC Case3:13-cv-05831-EMC Document165 Filed06/26/15 Page7 of 7 1 3) Sophos will provide an accounting of all devices in its possession responsive to the 2 Requests, including all devices currently in Sophos or the Former Fortinet Employees' possession, any 3 devices that are responsive to the Requests but that no longer exist and/or are now unavailable 4 (including the circumstances why they are unavailable) and identifying any employee for which 5 Sophos contends does not have a device responsive to the Requests. Sophos will provide this 6 accounting by end of businesses (5:00 PM Pacific) on June 29, 2015; 7 4) Once in Stroz Friedberg's possession, Fortinet counsel will not review the devices from 8 Sophos directly. Instead, Stroz Friedberg will run searches and other analyses of these devices, 9 identifying relevant information. Fortinet counsel will be able to evaluate the results of these 10 searches/analyses by file name and meta-data (but not the contents). Upon identification of files to 11 Sophos counsel, Sophos counsel will have 10 days from receipt to either claim privilege on the 12 material or produce them to Fortinet, where they will be able to be viewed entirely by Fortinet's 13 counsel (subject to any designations by the Protective Order). Any claims of privilege are subject to 14 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because of attorney-client privilege concerns, for the "Sophos 15 laptops" only, Fortinet agreed to provide the search terms for which it uses to collect data from the 16 devices. The parties agree that the devices/images will be kept securely within Stroz Friedberg's 17 offices. 18 5) The parties will file a joint status report to update the Court on these inspections in 20 days, 19 on July 15, 2015. 20 21 22 June 29 Dated: __________________, 2015 By: __________________________________ HONORABLE DONNA M. RYU 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 __________________________________________________________________________________ 04880-00001/6921513.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE AMENDED INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS Case No.: 3:13-cv-05831-EMC

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?