Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment (Shanghai) Co, LTD et al

Filing 340

ORDER re 229 Objection filed by Applied Materials, Inc.. Signed by Judge James Ware on June 19, 2009. (jwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Applied Materials, Inc., v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 07-05248 JW ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; SUSTAINING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DISCOVERY ORDER NO. 13; OVERRULING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DISCOVERY ORDER NO. 14

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment (Shanghai) Co., et al., Defendants. /

On March 11, 2009, the Court issued an Order Sustaining Plaintiff's Objection to Discovery Order No. 13; Overruling as Moot Plaintiff's Objection to Discovery Order No. 14. (Docket Item No. 248.) In the March 11 Order, the Court ordered that certain documents remain designated "Highly Confidential - Attorney's Eyes Only," subject to the applicable Protective Order. On April 1, 2009, Defendants sought leave to file a motion for reconsideration, contending that the Court had not given them sufficient time to file an opposition to Plaintiff's initial objections to the Special Masters Discovery Order Nos. 13 and 14. (Docket Item No. 56.) In light of this procedural oversight, the Court permitted Defendants to file an opposition to Plaintiff's objections, and stated that it would reconsider its March 11 Order in light of any such opposition. On May 11, 2009, Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiff's Objection to Discover Order Nos. 13 and 14. (Docket Item No. 326.) Upon review of the complete briefing of this issue, the Court finds no grounds to alter the conclusions contained in its March 11 Order. That is, despite Defendants' contentions, the Court

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

still finds that the documents at issue are appropriately subject to the Protective Order and designated "Highly Confidential - Attorney's Eyes Only." Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration and affirms the ruling in its March 11 Order.

Dated: June 19, 2009

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Brian Paul Gearing [e-mail] Colette R. Verkuil [e-mail] D. Stuart Bartow [e-mail] Daryl Stuart Bartow [e-mail] Douglas C Doskocil [e-mail] Harold J. McElhinny [e-mail] James C. Rehnquist [e-mail] John C. Englander [e-mail] Kenneth Alexander Kuwayti [e-mail] Marc David Peters [e-mail] Michael G. Strapp [e-mail] Paul Forrest Coyne [e-mail] Thomas F. Fitzpatrick [e-mail] Thomas H R Denver [e-mail]

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

Dated: June 19, 2009

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28