Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc

Filing 209

Unopposed MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory to Edouard Gueyffier by Google Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Michelle Ernst, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Text of Proposed Order)(Perlson, David)

EXHIBIT A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION

ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP
AND NETSTAR TECHNOLOGIES
LLC,

Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-893

Plaintiffs,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.

REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE (LETTER OF
REQUEST) WITH RESPECT TO BRITISH WITNESS – EDOUARD GUEYFFIER
TO THE HIGH COURT OF ENGLAND AND WALES:
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas presents its
compliments to the High Court of England and Wales and respectfully requests international
judicial assistance to obtain evidence to be used in the above-captioned civil action proceeding
before this Court. This Court has determined that it would further the interests of justice if by
the proper and usual process of your Court, you summon the witness Edouard Gueyffier to
appear before a person empowered under British law to administer oaths and take testimony
forthwith, to give testimony under oath or affirmation by questions and answers upon oral
examination in respect of the matters and issues identified in Schedule B, and permit the parties
to create a written transcript and video recording of such testimony and you summon Edouard
Gueyffier to produce copies of the documents in its possession, custody or control that are
identified in Schedule A.

The Applicant for this letter is Google Inc. (“Google”). British Counsel is available to
answer any questions the British Court may have.
This request is made pursuant to Rules 4(f) and 28 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure; the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial
Matters (the “Hague Evidence Convention”); the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §1651 and 28 U.S.C.
§1781 (permitting the transmittal of letters of request through the district courts and the
Department of State); the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and by the United Kingdom,
Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 and Part 34 of the Civil Procedure
Rules. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, is a
competent Court of law and equity which properly has jurisdiction over this proceeding, and has
the power to compel the attendance of witnesses and production of documents both within and
outside its jurisdiction. On information and belief, Mr. Edouard Gueyffier resides and/or works
in London.

On information and belief,

Mr. Edouard Gueyffier has or is likely to have

possession of the documents specified in Schedule A and knowledge of the subject matter
specified in Schedule B herein.
The testimony and production of documents are intended for use at trial and in the view
of this Court, will be relevant to claims and defences in the case, including Google’s defences to
the allegations of infringement of the asserted patents and to the calculation of alleged damages.
The evidence sought in this Letter of Request goes to the heart of significant issues of fact and
law that will influence the final determination of claims brought by the Plaintiffs, Rockstar
Consortium US LP and Netstar Technologies LLC (“Plaintiffs” or “Rockstar”).
This request is made with the understanding that it will in no way require any person to
commit any offense, or to undergo a broader form of inquiry than he or she would if the

2

litigation were conducted in a British Court. The requesting Court is satisfied that the evidence
sought to be obtained through this Letter of Request is relevant and necessary and cannot
reasonably be obtained by other methods.

Because this Court lacks authority to compel

participation of these persons and, such participation being necessary in order that justice be
served in the above-captioned proceedings, this Court respectfully requests assistance from the
High Court of England and Wales.
1.

SENDER
Honorable Rodney Gilstrap
United States District Court Judge
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
100 East Houston Street
Marshall, Texas 75670
United States of America

2.

CENTRAL AUTHORITY OF THE REQUESTED STATE
The High Court of England and Wales
The Senior Master
For the attention of the Foreign Process Section
Room E16
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
LONDON WC2A 2LL
Telephone: [phone]
c/o Alvin Aubeeluck
Team Leader – Foreign Process Section
Telephone: [phone]

3.

PERSON TO WHOM THE EXECUTED REQUEST IS TO BE
RETURNED
Sue Prevezer QC
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
One Fleet Place
London EC4M 7RA
United Kingdom

3

4.

SPECIFICATION OF DATE BY WHICH THE REQUESTING
AUTHORITY REQUIRES RECEIPT OF THE RESPONSE TO THE
LETTER OF REQUEST

A response is requested as soon as possible, in order to ensure that the evidence may be
obtained before the deadline for discovery in this case, currently set for January 7, 2015 by the
Court’s May 13, 2014 Docket Control Order. See Ex. 1. In their Initial Disclosures, the
Plaintiffs identified Lazard Freres & Co. LLC (“Lazard”) and several of Lazard’s former
employees, including Mr. Gueyffier, as likely to have information that is relevant to the parties’
claims and defences in the case. On August 6, 2014, Google served document subpoenas
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 on Lazard and three former Lazard employees
currently residing in the United States: David Descoteaux, Colin Keenan, and Justin Lux. On
August 20 and August 26, 2014, counsel for Lazard, Mr. Arthur Ruegger at the law firm,
Dentons, advised that he would also be representing Messieurs Descoteaux, Keenan, and Lux in
connection with Google’s Subpoenas. On August 27, 2014, Mr. Ruegger further advised that he
would likely be able to accept service of a Rule 45 Subpoena on behalf of Mr. Gueyffier as well,
pending final confirmation from Lazard.

However, on September 15, 2014, Mr. Ruegger

advised that he would not be able to accept service on behalf of Mr. Gueyffier. Accordingly,
service of any order made by this Court will need to be effected on Mr. Gueyffier personally.
5.

NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES AND THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CASE (ARTICLE 3(B))

The evidence requested relates to the action Rockstar Consortium US LP and NetStar
Technologies LLC v. Google Inc., Case No. 13-00893 (RG), United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas.

4

The parties and their representatives are listed herein as follows:
a.

Plaintiffs:

Rockstar Consortium US LP
Legacy Town Center I
7160 North Dallas Parkway
Suite No. 250
Plano, TX 75024
NetStar Technologies LLC
Legacy Town Center I
7160 North Dallas Parkway
Suite No. 250
Plano, TX 75024
Represented By:
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
Max L. Tribble, Jr.
Alexander L. Kaplan
John P. Lahad
Shawn Blackburn
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
Justin A. Nelson
Parker C. Folse, III
1201 Third Ave, Suite 3800
Seattle, Washington 98101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
WARD & SMITH LAW FIRM
T. John Ward, Jr.
Claire Abernathy Henry
P.O. Box 1231
Longview, TX 75606-1231
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5

b.

Defendant:

Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, California 94043
Represented By:
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven
David A. Perlson
Carl G. Anderson
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-4788
[phone]
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Robert B. Wilson
Michelle L. Ernst
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10010
[phone]
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Andrea Pallios Roberts
555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
[phone]
MANN TINDEL THOMPSON
J. Mark Mann
G. Blake Thompson
300 West Main Street
Henderson, Texas 75652
[phone]
6.

NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND SUMMARY OF
THE FACTS
a.

Nature and Purpose of the Claims

The above-captioned case is a civil proceeding in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas brought by Plaintiffs against Google alleging infringement of U.S.

6

Patent Nos. 6,098,0651; 7,236,969; 7,469,245; 7,672,970; 7,895,178; 7,895,183; and 7,933,883
(the “patents-in-suit”) which relate generally to search and advertising on Internet search
engines. In response to Rockstar’s allegations, Google has presented certain defences, including
non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the patents-in-suit.
The patents-in-suit were acquired by the Plaintiffs through an auction conducted by
Nortel Networks Corporation and its affiliates in 2011.

In connection with bankruptcy

proceedings and exploration of asset liquidation, Nortel decided to hold an auction for its patent
portfolio of over 6,000 patents, including the patents-in-suit. Nortel hired several advisors to
assist it with this endeavor, including but not limited to, Lazard, Global IP Law Group, and
several individuals, including Mr. Edouard Gueyffier, a former employee of Lazard. The auction
participants included shareholders of the Plaintiffs’ predecessor company, and Google. More
specifically, in June 2011, Apple, Microsoft, and three other technology companies founded the
Plaintiffs’ predecessor company, Rockstar Bidco, LP. In July 2011, Rockstar Bidco participated
in Nortel’s patent auction, ultimately won, and subsequently transferred the patents to the
Plaintiff, Rockstar Consortium US LP.
b.

Mr. Edouard Gueyffier’s Role

Mr. Edouard Gueyffier has been identified by the Plaintiffs as “advis[ing] Nortel in the
auction of its intellectual property assets, and as such is likely to have information related to
Nortel’s valuation and analysis of its patent assets and to the sale of the patents-in-suit.” Thus,
upon information and belief, Mr. Gueyffier has relevant information regarding analyses and
evaluations of the patentability and value of the patents-in-suit, including Nortel’s efforts to sell,

1

Rockstar has stated that it no longer accuses Google of infringing the ’065 patent but
all other patents-in-suit claim priority to the ’065 patent and, to date, that patent is still included
in the operative Complaint.
7

license, and otherwise monetize its patent assets, including through the 2011 auction. This
information is directly relevant to the Plaintiffs’ allegations of patent infringement and Google’s
defences that the patents-in-suit are not infringed, invalid, and unenforceable. This information
is also highly relevant to the determination of patent damages in the form of a reasonable royalty
if the patents-in-suit are found valid, infringed, and enforceable.
7.

EVIDENCE TO BE OBTAINED AND PURPOSE

The evidence to be obtained consists of documents and testimony for use at trial in this
matter. Google has requested oral testimony from Mr. Gueyffier who it is concluded has
information that is directly relevant to damages and Google’s defences that the patents-in-suit are
invalid, not infringed, and unenforceable and which Google cannot obtain by any other means.
The Court concludes that it is in the interests of justice for Mr. Gueyffier to be examined
on the topics listed in Schedule B and to produce the documents listed in Schedule A. Some of
the documents in Schedule A, and the testimony sought in Schedule B, may include
confidential, or trade secret information. Attached hereto at Exhibit 2 is a Protective Order
which extends to the documents produced or testimony of third parties like (and including) Mr.
Gueyffier.
Mr. Gueyffier resides and/or works in London, United Kingdom, and is, upon
information and belief, neither domiciled nor doing business in the United States. Thus, this
Court cannot directly compel him to provide the requested testimony.
It is, therefore, respectfully requested that the High Court of England and Wales compel
Mr. Gueyffier to produce documents responsive to the requests for production in Schedule A to
this Letter of Request, to the extent that they are in his possession, custody, or control, and are
not privileged under the applicable laws of the United Kingdom or the United States. This Court

8

also requests that the High Court of England and Wales compel the appearance of Mr. Gueyffier
to testify under oath, concerning the topics set forth in Schedule B to this Letter of Request.
The requested documents and testimony are needed for use at trial in connection with
Google’s defences and counterclaims. The requested evidence will be particularly relevant, for
example, to Google’s defences to the Plaintiffs’ allegations of patent infringement, including
non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability, and to the calculation of damages.

For

example, in connection with Nortel Network Corporation’s bankruptcy, Nortel retained Lazard
to analyze Nortel’s portfolio of over 6,000 patents and advise Nortel on the best ways to
monetize these assets. Upon information and belief, Mr. Gueyffier participated in this analysis
of the Nortel portfolio whilst employed at Lazard. Upon information and belief, Lazard’s
analysis of the Nortel portfolio included an examination of the validity and enforceability of
Nortel’s patents, including a review of the prior art and patent prosecution histories. Upon
information and belief, Lazard also analyzed third party products and services to determine
whether they infringed Nortel’s patents. Further, upon information and belief, Lazard conducted
valuation analyses to determine the monetary value of Nortel’s portfolio and Mr. Gueyffier
participated in these analyses. Mr. Gueyffier’s work on the Lazard analyses are directly relevant
to Google’s present investigation in support of its claims and defences that the asserted patents
are invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed, and to the calculation of damages. In their Initial
Disclosures, Plaintiffs represented that because “Mr. Gueyffier advised Nortel in the auction of
its intellectual property assets,” he is “likely to have information related to Nortel’s valuation and
analysis of its patent assets and to the sale of the patents-in-suit.”

9

While this Court expresses no view at this time as to the merits in the above-captioned
case, it believes the evidence sought here will be relevant to and either probative or disprobative
of material facts relevant to the parties’ claims and defences.
8.

IDENTITY AND ADDRESS OF THE ENTITIES AND PERSONS TO BE
EXAMINED

Edouard Gueyffier
Estin & Co.
Berkeley Square House
Berkeley Square
London W1J 6BD
United Kingdom
[phone]
9.

STATEMENT OF THE SUBJECT MATTER ABOUT WHICH THE
PERSON WILL BE EXAMINED

This Court requests that questioning be permitted of Mr. Edouard Gueyffier regarding the
topics listed in Schedule B to this Letter of Request.
10.

DOCUMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE TO BE EXAMINED

It would further the interests of justice if you would summon Mr. Edouard Gueyffier to
produce or make available for inspection the documents set forth in Schedule A to this Letter of
Request.
11.

REQUIREMENT THAT THE EVIDENCE BE GIVEN ON OATH OR
AFFIRMATION

It would further the interests of justice if, by the proper and usual process of your Court,
you summon Mr. Edouard Gueyffier to appear before a person empowered under British law to
administer oaths and take testimony and give testimony under oath or affirmation on the topics
listed in Schedule B by questions and answers upon oral examination at a convenient location in
London, United Kingdom.
12.

SPECIAL PROCEDURES OR METHOD TO BE FOLLOWED

10

The examinations shall be conducted pursuant to the discovery rules as provided for in
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the United States, except to the extent such procedure is
incompatible with the internal laws of the United Kingdom. This Court further requests: (1) that
the examination be taken orally; (2) that the examination be taken before a commercial
stenographer and videographer; (3) that the videographer be permitted to record the examination
by audiovisual means; (4) that the stenographer be allowed to record a verbatim transcript of the
examination; (5) that the examination be conducted in English, or, if necessary, with the
assistance of an interpreter selected by Google; (6) that the witness be examined for no more
than ten and a half (10.5) hours if the witness requires an interpreter or seven (7) hours if the
witness does not require an interpreter; (7) that the time allotted for the examination be divided
equally between the Plaintiffs and Google Inc.; and (8) that the witness be examined as soon as
possible.
In the event that the evidence cannot be taken according to some or all of the procedures
described above, this Court requests that it be taken in such manner as provided by local law for
the formal taking of testimonial evidence.
13.

REQUEST FOR NOTIFICATION

We respectfully request that any order made by the Court will require the examining
party to send notice of the time and place for the taking of testimony, and to provide copies of
the transcript and video recording of such deposition and copies of the documents produced to
the parties’ representatives as identified in Section 5 above and to:
Clerk of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
100 East Houston Street
Marshall, Texas 75670
United States of America

11

14.

REQUEST FOR ATTENDANCE OR PARTICIPATION OF JUDICIAL
PERSONNEL OF THE REQUESTING AUTHORITY AT THE
EXECUTION OF THE LETTER OF REQUEST

None.
15.

SPECIFICATION OF PRIVILEGE OR DUTY TO REFUSE TO GIVE
EVIDENCE UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE OF ORIGIN

Under the laws of the United States, a witness has a privilege to refuse to give evidence if
to do so would disclose a confidential communication between the witness and his or her
attorney that was communicated specifically for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and which
privilege has not been waived. United States law also recognizes a privilege against criminal
self-incrimination. Other limited privileges on grounds not applicable here also exist, such as
communications between doctor and patient, husband and wife, and clergy and penitent. Certain
limited immunities are also recognized outside the strict definition of privilege, such as the
limited protection of work product created by attorneys during or in anticipation of litigation.
16.

REIMBURSEMENT

The fees and costs incurred in the execution of this Request which are reimbursable will
be borne by Google.
Google is willing to reimburse the reimbursable fees and costs incurred by Mr. Edouard
Gueyffier in complying with any order of the High Court of England and Wales giving effect to
this Request for International Judicial Assistance.

Dated:
Honorable Rodney Gilstrap
U.S. District Court Judge

12

SCHEDULE A
DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED BY MR. EDOUARD GUEYFFIER
It is respectfully requested that Mr. Edouard Gueyffier be compelled to produce the
following documents that are in his possession, custody, or control, and which are not privileged
under British or U.S. law:
1.

Documents and communications regarding your work at Lazard advising Nortel

in connection with the Nortel bankruptcy, the valuation of Nortel’s intellectual property assets,
and/or the July 2011 auction of Nortel’s patent portfolio, including your role evaluating Nortel’s
patents and your participation in the July 2011 auction.
2.

Documents and communications regarding the Nortel bankruptcy, the valuation of

Nortel’s intellectual property assets, and/or the July 2011 auction of Nortel’s patent portfolio that
you prepared, received, analyzed, or obtained in connection with your work at Lazard.
3.

Documents and communications provided in any clean room or electronic data

room by you, Nortel, Lazard, or Global IP Law Group to potential investors or buyers in
connection with the July 2011 auction for Nortel’s intellectual property assets.
4.

Documents and communications regarding the patents-in-suit (namely, U.S.

Patent Nos. 6,098,065, 7,236,969, 7,469,245, 7,672,970, 7,895,178, 7,895,183, and 7,933,883),
any foreign counterparts thereof, and/or any patent or application that claims priority to the
patents-in-suit.
5.

Documents and communications regarding the valuation, analysis, or assessment

of Nortel’s patents or other intellectual property assets, including the patents-in-suit and any
related patents/applications.

13

6.

Documents and communications regarding meetings or discussions between you

and Nortel regarding Nortel’s patents or other intellectual property assets, including the patentsin-suit and related patents/applications.
7.

Documents and communications regarding meetings or discussions between you

and any third party regarding Nortel’s patents or other intellectual property assets, including the
patents-in-suit and related patents/applications, including any Rockstar entity, any Rockstar
shareholder (including Apple Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Sony Corporation of America,
Ericsson, EMC Corporation or Blackberry Ltd.), Google, or other third parties interested in
purchasing Nortel’s intellectual property assets.
8.

Documents and communications regarding Nortel’s intellectual property

segmentation process, consideration or development of an IP licensing and enforcement business
model (“IPCo”), and/or IP Steering Committee and working group.
9.

Documents and communications regarding efforts to license, sell, monetize, or

otherwise generate revenue from Nortel’s intellectual property assets, including the patents-insuit and/or related patents/applications, including documents or other materials prepared by you,
Lazard, or Global IP Law Group on behalf of Nortel and provided to potential investors or
buyers interested in purchasing Nortel’s intellectual property assets.
10.

Documents sufficient to identify every attempt by Nortel or any party acting on

behalf of Nortel, including you, Lazard, and Global IP Law Group, to enforce the patents-in-suit,
either in the United States or abroad.
11.

All agreements between you and Lazard, Global IP Law Group, and/or Nortel.

14

SCHEDULE B
TOPICS FOR THE DEPOSITION OF MR. EDOUARD GUEYFFIER
It is respectfully requested that Mr. Edouard Gueyffier be compelled to testify under oath
or affirmation, on the following topics for use at trial:
1.

Mr. Gueyffier’s work at Lazard advising Nortel in connection with the Nortel

bankruptcy, the valuation of Nortel’s intellectual property assets, and/or the July 2011 auction of
Nortel’s patent portfolio, including his role evaluating Nortel’s patents and his participation in
the July 2011 auction.
2.

Mr. Gueyffier’s knowledge of the valuation, analysis, or assessment of Nortel’s

patents or other intellectual property assets, including the patents-in-suit (namely, U.S. Patent
Nos. 6,098,065, 7,236,969, 7,469,245, 7,672,970, 7,895,178, 7,895,183, and 7,933,883), any
foreign counterparts thereof, and/or any patent or application that claims priority to the patentsin-suit.
3.

Mr. Gueyffier’s knowledge of meetings, discussions, and communications with

Nortel, any Rockstar entity, any Rockstar shareholder, Google, Lazard, Global IP Law Group, or
any third party regarding the Nortel bankruptcy, Nortel’s intellectual property assets, or the July
2011 auction of Nortel’s intellectual property assets.
4.

Mr. Gueyffier’s knowledge of the July 2011 auction for Nortel’s intellectual

property assets, including his role or the role of Lazard in the July 2011 auction.
5.

Mr. Gueyffier’s knowledge of the valuation of Nortel’s intellectual property

assets, including the patents-in-suit, including analyses and valuations performed by him and/or
Lazard.

15

6.

Mr. Gueyffier’s knowledge of efforts to license, sell, monetize, or otherwise

generate revenue from Nortel’s intellectual property assets, including the patents-in-suit and
related patents/applications.
7.

Mr. Gueyffier’s knowledge of Nortel’s intellectual property segmentation process,

consideration or development of an IP licensing and enforcement business model (“IPCo”),
and/or IP Steering Committee and working group.
8.

The documents produced in response to this Letter of Request.

16

EXHIBIT 1

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 68 Filed 05/13/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 878

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP AND
NETSTAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

v.
GOOGLE INC.
Defendant.

DOCKET CONTROL ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that th e following schedule of deadline s is in ef fect until further
order of this Court:
June 8, 2015

*Jury Selection – 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas

April 27, 2015

*Pretrial Conference – 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas before
Judge Roy Payne

April 22, 2015

*Notify Court of Agreements Reached During Meet and Confer
The parties are ordered to m eet and confer on any outstanding
objections or motions in limine. The parties shall advise the Court of
any agreements reach ed no later than 1:00 p.m. three (3) busines s
days before the pretrial conference.

April 20, 2015

*File Joint Pretrial Order, Joint Proposed Jury Instructions, Joint
Proposed Verdict Form, and Responses to Motions in Limine

April 13, 2015

*File Notice of Request for Daily Transcript or Real Time Reporting.
If a daily tr anscript or real tim e reporting of court proceedings is
requested for trial, the party or parties making said request shall file a
notice with the Court an d e-mail the Court Reporter, Shelly Holmes,
at [e-mail].

01980.51575/5896345.2

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 68 Filed 05/13/14 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 879

April 6, 2015

File Motions in Limine
The parties shall lim it their m otions in limine to issue s that if
improperly introduced at trial would be so prejudicial that the Court
could not alleviate the prejudice by giving appropriate instructions to
the jury.

April 6, 2015

Serve Objections to Rebuttal Pretrial Disclosures

March 30, 2015

Serve Objections to Pretrial Disclosures; and Serve Rebuttal Pretrial
Disclosures

March 16, 2015

Serve Pretrial Disclo sures (Witness List, Deposition Des ignations,
and Exhibit List) by the Party with the Burden of Proof

March 13, 2015

*File Dispositive Motions or Motio ns to Strike Expert Testim ony
(including Daubert Motions)
No dispositive m otion or m otion to strike expert testim ony
(including a Daubert motion) m ay be filed af ter this date without
leave of the Court.

March 9, 2015

Deadline to Complete Expert Discovery

February 16, 2015

Serve Disclosures for Rebuttal Expert Witnesses

January 19, 2015

Serve Disclosures for Expert Witnesses by the Party with the Burden
of Proof

January 12, 2015

Deadline to File Motions to Compel Discovery

January 7, 2015

Deadline to Complete Fact Discovery

December 22, 2014

*Deadline to File Letter Briefs Regarding Dispositive Motions

November 25, 2014

Deadline to Complete Mediation
The parties are responsible for en suring that a m ediation report is
filed no later than 5 days after the conclusion of mediation. See L.R.
App. H.

November 18, 2014

Comply with P.R. 3-7 (Opinion of Counsel Defenses)

October 28, 2014

*Claim Construction Hearing – 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas before
Judge Roy Payne.

October 14, 2014

*Comply with P.R. 4-5(d) (Joint Claim Construction Chart)

01980.51575/5896345.2

-2-

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 68 Filed 05/13/14 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 880

October 7, 2014

*Comply with P.R. 4-5(c) (Reply Claim Construction Brief)

September 30, 2014

Comply with P.R. 4-5(b) (Responsive Claim Construction Brief)

September 26, 2014

Deadline to Exchange Privilege Logs

September 16, 2014

Comply with P.R. 4-5( a) (Opening Claim Construction Brief) and
Submit Technical Tutorials (if any)

September 16, 2014

Deadline to Substantially Complete Document Production
Counsel are expected to m ake good faith efforts to produce all
required documents as soon as they are available and not wait until
the substantial completion deadline.

September 2, 2014

Comply with P.R. 4-4 (D eadline to Com plete Claim Construction
Discovery)

August 26, 2014

File Response to Amended Pleadings

August 12, 2014

*File Amended Pleadings
It is not necessary to seek leave of Court to amend pleadings prior to
this deadline unless the amendment seeks to assert additional patents.

August 5, 2014

Comply with P.R. 4-3 (Joint Claim Construction Statement)

July 15, 2014

Comply with P.R. 4-2 (Exchange Preliminary Claim Constructions)

June 24, 2014

Comply with P.R. 4-1 (Exchange Proposed Claim Terms)

May 19, 2014

Comply with P.R. 3-3 & 3-4 (Invalidity Contentions)

April 28, 2014

*File Proposed Protective Or der and Comply with Paragraphs 1 & 3
of the Discovery Order (Initial and Additional Disclosures)

April 21, 2014

*File Proposed Docket Cont rol Order, Proposed Discovery Order,
and Notice of Mediator
The Proposed Docket Control Or der and the Proposed Discovery
Order shall be f iled as separate motions with the caption ind icating
whether or not the proposed order is opposed in any part.

April 14, 2014

Join Additional Parties

March 24, 2014

Comply with P.R. 3-1 & 3-2 (Infringement Contentions)

01980.51575/5896345.2

-3-

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 68 Filed 05/13/14 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 881

(*) indicates a deadline that cannot be changed without showing good cause. Good cause is not
shown merely by indicating that the parties agree that the deadline should be changed.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Notice of Mediator: The parties are to jointly file a notice that identifies the agreed upon
mediator or indicates that no agreem ent was reached. If the parties do n ot reach an agreem ent,
the Court will appoint a mediator. The parties should not file a list of mediators to be considered
by the Court.
Summary Judgment Motions : Prior to filing any su mmary judgment m otion, the
parties must submit letter briefs seeking perm ission to file the m otion. The opening letter brief
in each of those matters shall be no longer than five (5) pages and shall be filed with the Court no
later than th e deadline for filing letter briefs. Answering letter briefs in each of those m atters
shall be no longer than five (5) pages and filed with the Court no later than fourteen (14) days
thereafter. Reply briefs in each of those m atters shall be no longer than three (3) pages and filed
with the Court no la ter than five (5) days ther eafter. The Court m ay decide the question on the
submissions or hold a hearing or telephone conf erence to hear argum ents and t o determine
whether the filing of any motion will be permitted. Letter briefs shall be filed without exhibits.
Any requests to submit letter briefs after the deadlines outlined above must show good cause.
Indefiniteness: In lieu of early m otions for summary judgment, the parties are directed
to include any arguments related to the issue of indefiniteness in their Markman briefing, subject
to the local rules’ normal page limits.
Motions for Continuance : The following excuses will not warrant a continuance nor
justify a failure to comply with the discovery deadline:
(a)

The fact that there are motions for summary judgment or motions to dismiss pending;

(b)

The fact that one or more of the attorneys is set for trial in another court on the same day,
unless the other setting was m ade prior to the date of this order or was made as a special
provision for the parties in the other case;

(c)

The failure to complete discovery prior to trial, unless the parties can demonstrate that it
was impossible to complete discovery despite their good faith effort to do so.

01980.51575/5896345.2

-4-

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 68 Filed 05/13/14 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 882

Amendments to the Docket Control Order (“DCO”): Any motion to alter any date on
the DCO shall take the form of motion to amend the DCO. The motion to amend the DCO shall
include a proposed order that lists all of the rem aining dates in one column (as above) and the
proposed changes to each date in an additional ad jacent column (if there is no change for a date
the proposed date column should rem ain blank or indicate that it is unchanged). In other words,
the DCO in the proposed order should be com
plete such that one can clearly see all the
remaining deadlines and the changes, if any, to those dead lines, rather than needing to also refer
to an earlier version of the DCO.
IT IS SO ORDERED. of January, 2012.
SIGNED this 3rd day
SIGNED this 12th day of May, 2014.

____________________________________
ROY S. PAYNE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 1058

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION

ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP
AND NETSTAR TECHNOLOGIES
LLC,
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-893

Plaintiffs,
v.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.

PROTECTIVE ORDER
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Rockstar Consortium US LP and Netstar Technologies LLC and
Defendant Google Inc., hereafter referred to as "the Parties," believe that certain information that
is or will be encompassed by discovery demands by the Parties involves the production or
disclosure of trade secrets, confidential business information, or other proprietary information;
WHEREAS, the Parties seek a protective order limiting disclosure thereof in accordance
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c):
THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated among the Parties and ORDERED that:
1.

Each Party may designate as confidential for protection under this Order, in whole or in
part, any document, information or material that constitutes or includes, in whole or in
part, confidential or proprietary information or trade secrets of the Party, or of any person
who is not a Party to this Action ("Third Party") to whom the Party reasonably believes it
owes an obligation of confidentiality with respect to such document, information or
material ("Designated Material").

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 2 of 30 PageID #: 1059

2.

Any document produced under Patent Rules 2-2, 3-2, and/or 3-4 before issuance of this
Order with the designation "Confidential" or "Confidential - Outside Attorneys' Eyes
Only" shall receive the same treatment as if designated "RESTRICTED - ATTORNEYS'
EYES ONLY" under this Order, unless and until such document is redesignated to have a
different classification under this Order.

3.

With respect to documents, information or material designated "CONFIDENTIAL,"
"RESTRICTED - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY," "RESTRICTED - ATTORNEYS'
EYES ONLY – PROSECUTION BAR," or "RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE
CODE" ("DESIGNATED MATERIAL"),1 subject to the provisions herein and unless
otherwise stated, this Order governs, without limitation: (a) all documents, electronically
stored information, and/or things as defined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
(b) all pretrial, hearing or deposition testimony, or documents marked as exhibits or for
identification in depositions and hearings; (c) pretrial pleadings, exhibits to pleadings and
other court filings; (d) affidavits; and (e) stipulations. All copies, reproductions, extracts,
digests and complete or partial summaries prepared from any DESIGNATED
MATERIALS shall also be considered DESIGNATED MATERIAL and treated as such
under this Order.

4.

A designation of Protected Material (i.e., "CONFIDENTIAL," "RESTRICTED ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY," "RESTRICTED - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY –
PROSECUTION BAR," or "RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE") may

1

The term DESIGNATED MATERIAL is used throughout this Order to refer to the class
of materials designated as "CONFIDENTIAL," "RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS' EYES
ONLY," "RESTRICTED - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY – PROSECUTION BAR," or
"RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE," both individually and collectively.
-2-

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 3 of 30 PageID #: 1060

be made at any time. Inadvertent or unintentional production of documents, information
or material that has not been designated as DESIGNATED MATERIAL shall not be
deemed a waiver in whole or in part of a claim for confidential treatment. With respect to
documents, any Party that inadvertently or unintentionally produces Protected Material
without designating it as DESIGNATED MATERIAL may request destruction of that
Protected Material by notifying the recipient(s), as soon as reasonably possible after the
Producing Party becomes aware of the inadvertent or unintentional disclosure, and
providing replacement DESIGNATED MATERIAL that is properly designated. The
recipient(s) shall then destroy all copies of the inadvertently or unintentionally produced
Protected Materials and any documents, information or material derived from or based
thereon.
5.

For purposes of this Order, "CONFIDENTIAL” information shall mean all information
or material produced for or disclosed in connection with this action to a Receiving Party
that a Producing Party, considers to comprise confidential technical, sales, marketing,
financial, or other commercially sensitive information, whether embodied in physical
objects, documents, or the factual knowledge of persons, and which has been so
designated by the Producing Party. Any CONFIDENTIAL information obtained by any
party from any person pursuant to discovery in this litigation may be used only for
purposes of this litigation.

6.

"CONFIDENTIAL" documents, information and material may be disclosed only to the
following persons, except upon receipt of the prior written consent of the designating
Party, upon order of the Court, or as set forth in paragraph 17 herein:
(a)

outside counsel of record in this Action for the Parties;
-3-

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 4 of 30 PageID #: 1061

(b)

employees of such counsel assigned to and reasonably necessary to assist such
counsel in the litigation of this Action and service vendors of such counsel
(including outside copying services and outside litigation support services such as
graphics design, jury consultants, translators and interpreters) assisting in the
conduct of the Action;

(c)

Up to and including three (3) designated in-house counsel for each of the Parties
who are members of at least one state bar in good standing, who either have
responsibility for making decisions dealing directly with the litigation of this
Action, or who are assisting outside counsel in the litigation of this Action;

(d)

outside consultants or experts2 retained for the purpose of this litigation, provided
that: (1) such consultants or experts are not existing employees or presently
employed by the Parties or their affiliates; (2) before receipt of or access to any
DESIGNATED MATERIAL, the consultant or expert has completed the
Undertaking attached as Exhibit A and the same is served upon the Producing
Party with (a) a current curriculum vitae of the consultant or expert, (b) disclosure
of the consultant's or expert's employment for at least the past four years, (c)
disclosure of the consultant's or expert's publications for the last eight years, (d)
disclosure of any legal action (by name and number of the case and court) in
connection with which the consultant or expert was retained or testified at trial or
by deposition during the past four years, and (e) a identification of any patents or

2

For the purposes of this paragraph, an outside consultant or expert is defined to include
the outside consultant's or expert's direct reports and other support personnel, such that the
disclosure to a consultant or expert who employs others within his or her firm to help in his or
her analysis shall count as a disclosure to a single consultant or expert.
-4-

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 5 of 30 PageID #: 1062

patent applications in which the consultant or expert is identified as an inventor or
applicant, is involved in prosecuting or maintaining, or has any pecuniary interest,
within 10 (ten) days of receiving the materials identified in the preceding
sentence, the Producing Party may notify in writing the Party proposing the
consultant or expert that it objects to that consultant’s or expert’s receipt of or
access to DESIGNATED MATERIAL. The objection must be based on the
Producing Party’s good faith belief that disclosure of its DESIGNATED
MATERIAL to the consultant or expert will result in specific business or
economic harm to that party. The written objection must set forth in detail the
grounds on which it is based.
(i)

The Parties agree to promptly meet and confer in good faith to resolve
such objection. If after consideration of the objection, the party desiring to
disclose the DESIGNATED MATERIAL to a consultant or expert refuses
to withdraw the consultant or expert, that party shall provide notice to the
objecting party. Thereafter, the objecting party shall move the Court,
within seven (7) business days of receiving such notice, for a ruling on its
objection. A failure to object within the 10-day period or subsequently
file a motion within the seven business day period, absent an agreement of
the parties to the contrary or for an extension, shall operate as an approval
of disclosure of DESIGNATED MATERIAL to the consultant or expert.
The parties agree to cooperate in good faith to shorten the time frames set
forth in this paragraph if necessary to abide by any discovery or briefing
schedules.
-5-

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 6 of 30 PageID #: 1063

(ii)

The objecting party shall have the burden of showing to the Court "good
cause" for preventing the disclosure of its DESIGNATED MATERIAL to
the consultant or expert.

(iii)

A party who has not previously objected to disclosure of DESIGNATED
MATERIAL to a consultant or expert or whose objection has been
resolved with respect to previously produced information shall not be
precluded from raising an objection to a consultant or expert at a later time
with respect to materials or information that are produced after the time
for objecting to such a consultant or expert has expired.

Any such

objection shall be handled in accordance with the provisions set forth
above in Paragraphs 6(d)(i)-(ii) above. However, this objection shall not
serve to suspend the consultant’s or expert’s receipt of or access to
DESIGNATED MATERIAL which has already been produced;
(e)

independent litigation support services, including persons working for or as court
reporters, stenographers, or videographers; graphics, translation or design services
retained by counsel for purposes of preparing demonstrative or other exhibits for
deposition, trial, or other court proceedings in the actions; and non-technical jury
or trial consulting services including mock jurors (subject to § 33), and
photocopy, document imaging, and database services retained by counsel and
reasonably necessary to assist counsel with the litigation of this Action; and

(f)

the Court and any of its staff and administrative personnel, and stenographic
reporters (under seal or with other suitable precautions determined by the Court).

-6-

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 7 of 30 PageID #: 1064

7.

Documents, information or material produced in this Action, and designated as
DESIGNATED MATERIAL, shall be used by the Parties only in the litigation of this
Action and shall not be used for any other purpose. Any person or entity who obtains
access to DESIGNATED MATERIAL or the contents thereof pursuant to this Order shall
not make any copies, duplicates, extracts, summaries or descriptions of such
DESIGNATED MATERIAL or any portion thereof except as may be reasonably
necessary in the litigation of this Action.

Any such copies, duplicates, extracts,

summaries or descriptions shall be classified DESIGNATED MATERIAL and subject to
all of the terms and conditions of this Order.
8.

To the extent a Producing Party believes that certain DESIGNATED MATERIAL
qualifying to be designated CONFIDENTIAL is so sensitive that its dissemination
deserves even further limitation, the Producing Party may designate such DESIGNATED
MATERIAL "RESTRICTED -- ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY."

9.

The RESTRICTED-ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY designation is reserved for
information that constitutes (a) marketing, financial, sales, web traffic, research and
development, or technical, data or information; (b) commercially sensitive competitive
information, including, without limitation, information obtained from a nonparty pursuant
to a current Nondisclosure Agreement ("NDA"); (c) information or data relating to future
products not yet commercially released and/or strategic plans; and, (d) commercial
agreements, settlement agreements or settlement communications, the disclosure of
which is likely to cause harm to the competitive position of the Producing Party. In
determining whether information should be designated as RESTRICTED-ATTORNEYS’
EYES ONLY, each party agrees to use such designation only in good faith. Technical
-7-

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 8 of 30 PageID #: 1065

information such as would trigger the prosecution bar in paragraph below must be
designated as "RESTRICTED - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY – PROSECUTION BAR."
The following documents and materials shall not be eligible for designation as
"RESTRICTED - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY – PROSECUTION BAR”: (i) documents
and information related only to damages or reasonable royalty rates; (ii) publications,
including patents and published patent applications; (iii) materials regarding third party
systems or products that were publicly known, on sale, or in public use before June 6,
1996 unless such materials are designated "RESTRICTED - ATTORNEYS' EYES
ONLY – PROSECUTION BAR” materials by a third party; and (iv) information that is
publicly available.
10.

For DESIGNATED MATERIAL designated RESTRICTED -- ATTORNEYS' EYES
ONLY or "RESTRICTED - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY – PROSECUTION BAR,"
access to, and disclosure of, such DESIGNATED MATERIAL shall be limited to
individuals listed in paragraphs 6 a, b, c, d, e, and f; provided, however, that access by inhouse counsel pursuant to paragraph 6(c) be limited to in-house counsel who exercise no
competitive decision-making authority on behalf of the client.

11.

The RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE designation is reserved for
documents containing confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret source code. The
following restrictions govern the production, review and use of RESTRICTED
CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE information.
(a)

Source code, to the extent any Producing Party agrees to provide any such
information, shall ONLY be made available for inspection, not produced except
as provided for below, and shall be made available in electronic format at one of
-8-

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 9 of 30 PageID #: 1066

the locations identified in paragraph 11(d). Source Code will be loaded onto two
non-networked computers that are password protected and maintained in a secure,
locked area. To facilitate the taking of notes during the review of Source Code,
persons admitted into the room containing Source Code shall be entitled to take a
personal laptop computer that is not connected to any wired or wireless network;
however, the use or possession of any input/output device (e.g., USB memory
stick, cameras or any camera-enabled device (including camera-enabled personal
laptops), CDs, floppy disk, portable hard drive, or any devices that can access the
Internet or any other network or external system, etc.) separate from the laptop
computer is prohibited while accessing the computer containing the Source Code.
All persons entering the locked room containing the Source Code must agree to
submit to reasonable security measures to insure they are not carrying any
prohibited items before they will be given access to the locked room.

The

computers containing Source Code will be made available for inspection during
regular business hours, upon reasonable notice to the Producing Party, which shall
not be less than three business days in advance of the requested inspection;
(b)

The Receiving Party’s outside counsel and/or experts or consultants may request
that commercially available licensed software tools for viewing and searching
Source Code be installed on the secured computer. The Receiving Party must
provide the Producing Party with the CD or DVD containing such software
tool(s), and any necessary licenses, at least four business days in advance of the
date upon which the Receiving Party wishes to have the additional software tools
available for use on the stand-alone computers.
-9-

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 10 of 30 PageID #: 1067

(c)

The Receiving Party’s outside counsel and/or expert or consultant shall be entitled
to take notes relating to the Source Code but may not copy any portion of the
Source Code into the notes. No copies of all or any portion of the Source Code
may leave the room in which the Source Code is inspected except as otherwise
provided herein. Further, no other written or electronic record of the Source Code
is permitted except as otherwise provided herein.

(d)

The Producing Party shall make the Source Code Material available at one of the
following locations chosen at the sole discretion of the Producing Party: (1) the
offices of the Producing Party’s primary outside counsel of record in this action;
or (2) a location mutually agreed upon by the receiving and producing parties
(e.g. an escrow company). Any location under (1) or (2) above shall be in the
continental United States.

(e)

In order to verify that its Source Code Material has not later been altered, the
Producing Party may benchmark the materials to confirm that the materials have
not been altered before and after they are provided but shall not install any
keystroke or other monitoring software on the stand-alone computer.

(f)

The Producing Party shall provide the receiving Party with information explaining
how to start, log on to, and operate the stand-alone computer in order to access the
produced Source Code Material on the stand-alone computer.

(g)

No person shall copy, e-mail, transmit, upload, download, print, photograph or
otherwise duplicate any portion of the designated Source Code, except as the
Receiving Party may request a reasonable number of pages of Source Code to be
printed by the Producing Party, but only if and to the extent necessary for use in
- 10 -

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 11 of 30 PageID #: 1068

this action. Within 5 business days or such additional time as necessary due to
volume requested, the Producing Party will provide the requested material on
watermarked or colored paper bearing Bates numbers and the legend
“RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL - SOURCE CODE" unless objected to as
discussed below. The printed pages shall constitute part of the Source Code
produced by the Producing Party in this action. At the Receiving Party’s request,
up to two additional sets (or subsets) of printed Source Code may be requested
and provided by the Producing Party in a timely fashion.
(h)

If the Producing Party objects that the printed portions are not reasonably
necessary to any case preparation activity, the Producing Party shall make such
objection known to the Receiving Party within five business days. If after
meeting and conferring the Producing Party and the Receiving Party cannot
resolve the objection (where such meet-and-confer need not take place in person),
the Producing Party shall be entitled to seek a Court resolution of whether the
printed Source Code in question is reasonably necessary to any case preparation
activity. Contested Source Code print outs need not be produced to the requesting
party until the matter is resolved by the Court. If the Producing Party does not
seek a Court resolution, then the printouts shall be provided.

(i)

Any printed pages of Source Code, and any other documents or things reflecting
Source Code that have been designated by the Producing Party as “RESTRICTED
CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE” may not be copied, digitally imaged or
otherwise duplicated, except in limited excerpts necessary to attach as exhibits to
depositions, expert reports, or court filings as discussed below.
- 11 -

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 12 of 30 PageID #: 1069

(j)

Any paper copies designated “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE
CODE” shall be stored or viewed only at (i) the offices of outside counsel for the
Receiving Party, (ii) the offices of outside experts or consultants who have been
approved to access Source Code; (iii) the site where any deposition is taken (iv)
the Court; or (v) any intermediate location necessary to transport the information
to a hearing, trial or deposition or between locations (i) through (iv). Any such
paper copies shall be maintained at all times in a secure location under the direct
control of an expert or consultant who has been approved to access Source Code
(if stored at the expert or consultant’s office) or counsel responsible for
maintaining the security and confidentiality of the designated materials. Nothing
herein shall preclude the Receiving Party from mailing, shipping, or delivering
source code between locations (i) through (v), provided that the Receiving Party
uses at least a tracking number (e.g. a FedEx tracking number) and signed
delivery confirmation in mailing, shipping, or delivering between such locations.
Should such a shipment go missing, the Receiving Party shall timely notify the
Producing Party and the Court with specifics.

(k)

A list of names of persons who will view the Source Code will be provided to the
Producing Party in conjunction with any written (including email) notice
requesting inspection. The Receiving Party shall maintain a daily log of the
names of persons who enter the locked room to view the Source Code and when
they enter and depart, and the Producing Party shall be entitled to request a copy
of the daily log. In the alternative, if the Receiving Party prefers, the Producing
Party may retain the copy of the daily log that is maintained by the Receiving
- 12 -

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 13 of 30 PageID #: 1070

Party.

The Producing Party shall be entitled to have a person observe all

entrances and exits from the Source Code viewing room.
(l)

Unless otherwise agreed in advance by the parties in writing, following each
inspection, the Receiving Party’s outside counsel and/or experts shall remove all
notes, documents, and all other materials from the room that may contain work
product and/or attorney-client privileged information. The Producing Party shall
not be responsible for any items left in the room following each inspection
session.

(m)

The Receiving Party will not copy, remove, or otherwise transfer any portion of
the Source Code from the Source Code Computer including, without limitation,
copying, removing, or transferring any portion of the Source Code onto any other
computers or peripheral equipment. The Receiving Party will not transmit any
portion of the Source Code in any way from the location of the Source Code
inspection.

(n)

Access

to

DESIGNATED

MATERIAL

designated

RESTRICTED

CONFIDENTIAL - SOURCE CODE shall be limited to:
(i) Outside counsel of record for the parties to this action, including any attorneys,
paralegals, technology specialists and clerical employees of their respective law
firms;
(ii) Up to five (5) outside experts or consultants per party, pre-approved in
accordance with Paragraph 6(d) and specifically identified as eligible to access
Source Code;

- 13 -

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 14 of 30 PageID #: 1071

(iii) The Court, its technical advisor (if one is appointed), the jury, court
personnel, and court reporters or videographers recording testimony or other
proceedings in this action. Court reporters and/or videographers shall not retain
or be given copies of any portions of the Source Code.

If used during a

deposition, the deposition record will identify the exhibit by its production
numbers;
(iv) While testifying at deposition or trial in this action only: (a) any current or
former officer, director or employee of the Producing Party or original source of
the information; (b) any person designated by the Producing Party to provide
testimony pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
and/or (c) any person who authored, previously received (other than in connection
with this litigation), or was directly involved in creating, modifying, or editing the
Source Code, as evident from its face or reasonably certain in view of other
testimony or evidence. Persons authorized to view Source Code pursuant to this
sub-paragraph shall not retain or be given copies of the Source Code except while
so testifying.
(o)

The Receiving Party’s outside counsel shall maintain a log of all copies of the
Source Code (received from a Producing Party) that are delivered by the
Receiving Party to any qualified person under Paragraph 11(n) above. The log
shall include the names of the recipients and reviewers of copies and locations
where the copies are stored. Upon request by the Producing Party, the Receiving
Party shall provide reasonable assurances and/or descriptions of the security

- 14 -

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 15 of 30 PageID #: 1072

measures employed by the Receiving Party and/or qualified person that receives a
copy of any portion of the Source Code.
(p)

Except as provided in this paragraph, the Receiving Party may not create
electronic images, or any other images, of the Source Code from the paper copy
for use on a computer (e.g., may not scan the source code to a PDF, or photograph
the code). The Receiving Party may create an electronic copy or image of limited
excerpts of Source Code only to the extent necessary in a pleading, exhibit, expert
report, discovery document, deposition transcript, other Court document, or any
drafts of these documents ("SOURCE CODE DOCUMENTS"). The Receiving
Party shall only include such excerpts as are reasonably necessary for the
purposes for which such part of the Source Code is used. Images or copies of
Source Code shall not be included in correspondence between the parties
(references to production numbers shall be used instead) and shall be omitted
from pleadings and other papers except to the extent permitted herein. The
Receiving Party may create an electronic image of a selected portion of the
Source Code only when the electronic file containing such image has been
encrypted using commercially reasonable encryption software including password
protection. The communication and/or disclosure of electronic files containing
any portion of Source Code shall at all times be limited to individuals who are
authorized to see Source Code under the provisions of this Protective Order. The
Receiving Party shall maintain a log of all SOURCE CODE DOCUMENTS in its
possession or in the possession of its retained consultants, including the names of
the recipients and reviewers of any SOURCE CODE DOCUMENTSand the
- 15 -

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 16 of 30 PageID #: 1073

locations

where

they

are

stored.

Additionally,

all

SOURCE

CODE

DOCUMENTS must be labeled "RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL - SOURCE
CODE."
(q)

A receiving Party may include excerpts of Source Code Material in a pleading,
exhibit, expert report, discovery document, deposition transcript, other Court
document, provided that the Source Code Documents are appropriately marked
under this Order, restricted to those who are entitled to have access to them as
specified herein, and, if filed with the Court, filed under seal in accordance with
the Court's rules, procedures and orders;

(r)

To the extent portions of Source Code Material are quoted in a Source Code
Document, either (1) the entire Source Code Document will be stamped and
treated as RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE or (2) those pages
containing quoted Source Code Material will be separately stamped and treated as
RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE;

(s)

All copies of any portion of the Source Code in whatever form shall be securely
destroyed if they are no longer in use. Copies of Source Code that are marked as
deposition exhibits shall not be provided to the Court Reporter or attached to
deposition transcripts; rather, the deposition record will identify the exhibit by its
production numbers.

(t)

The Receiving Party’s outside counsel may only disclose a copy of the Source
Code to individuals specified in Paragraph 11(n) above (e.g., Source Code may
not be disclosed to in-house counsel).

- 16 -

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 17 of 30 PageID #: 1074

(u)

If the receiving Party's outside counsel, consultants, or experts obtain printouts or
photocopies of Source Code Material, the receiving Party shall ensure that such
outside counsel, consultants, or experts keep the printouts or photocopies in a
secured locked area in the offices of such outside counsel, consultants, or expert.
The receiving Party may also temporarily keep the printouts or photocopies at:
(i) the Court for any proceedings(s) relating to the Source Code Material, for the
dates associated with the proceeding(s); (ii) the sites where any deposition(s)
relating to the Source Code Material are taken, for the dates associated with the
deposition(s); (iii) the Court for any filing(s) related to the Source Code Material,
filed under court seal; and (iv) any intermediate location reasonably necessary to
transport the printouts or photocopies (e.g., a hotel prior to a Court proceeding or
deposition).

12.

Non-parties may be examined or testify concerning any document containing
DESIGNATED MATERIAL of a producing party which appears on its face or from
other documents or testimony to have been received from or communicated to the nonparty as a result of any contact or relationship with the producing party or a
representative of the producing party. Any person other than the witness, his or her
attorney(s), or any person qualified to receive DESIGNATED MATERIAL under this
Order shall be excluded from the portion of the examination concerning such
information, unless the producing party consents to persons other than qualified
recipients being present at the examination. If the witness is represented by an attorney
who is not qualified under this Order to receive such information, then prior to the
examination, the attorney must provide a signed statement, in the form of Attachment A
- 17 -

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 18 of 30 PageID #: 1075

hereto, that he or she will comply with the terms of this Order and maintain the
confidentiality of DESIGNATED MATERIAL disclosed during the course of the
examination. In the event that such attorney declines to sign such a statement prior to the
examination, the producing party, by its attorneys, may seek a protective order from the
Court prohibiting the attorney from disclosing DESIGNATED MATERIAL.
13.

Any attorney representing a Party, whether in-house or outside counsel, and any person
associated with a Party and permitted to receive the other Party’s Protected Material that
is designated RESTRICTED -- ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY and/or RESTRICTED
CONFIDENTIAL

SOURCE

CODE

(collectively

“HIGHLY

SENSITIVE

MATERIAL”), who obtains, receives, has access to, or otherwise learns, in whole or in
part, the other Party’s HIGHLY SENSITIVE MATERIAL under this Order shall not
prepare, prosecute, supervise, or assist in the preparation or prosecution of any patent
application pertaining to the field of the invention of the patents-in-suit on behalf of the
receiving Party or its acquirer, successor, predecessor, or other affiliate during the
pendency of this Action and for one year after its conclusion, including any appeals. To
ensure compliance with the purpose of this provision, each Party shall create an “Ethical
Wall” between those persons with access to HIGHLY SENSITIVE MATERIAL and any
individuals who, on behalf of the Party or its acquirer, successor, predecessor, or other
affiliate, prepare, prosecute, supervise or assist in the preparation or prosecution of any
patent application pertaining to the field of invention of the patent-in-suit. For the
avoidance of doubt, nothing in this provision shall preclude any person who obtains,
receives, has access to, or otherwise learns, in whole or in part, the other Party's Protected
Material under this Order from participating in any post-grant proceeding, except that
- 18 -

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 19 of 30 PageID #: 1076

such persons may not directly or indirectly assist in drafting, amending or proposing for
substitution patent claims in any post-grant proceeding. Nothing in this Section shall
prevent any attorney from sending non-confidential prior art to an attorney involved in
patent prosecution for purposes of ensuring that such prior art is submitted to the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (or any similar agency of a foreign government) to assist a
patent applicant in complying with its duty of candor. Nothing in this provision shall
prohibit any attorney of record in this litigation from discussing any aspect of this case
that is reasonably necessary for the prosecution or defense of any claim or counterclaim
in this litigation with his/her client.

The parties expressly agree that the Prosecution Bar

set forth herein shall be personal to any attorney who review DESIGNATED
MATERIAL marked RESTRICTED ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY – PROSECUTION
BAR or RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE and shall not be imputed to
any other persons or attorneys at the attorneys' law firm. Individuals who work on this
matter without reviewing protected material marked RESTRICTED ATTORNEYS'
EYES ONLY – PROSECUTION BAR or RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE
CODE shall not be restricted from engaging in Prosecution Activity on matters that fall
within the Prosecution Bar.

This prosecution bar may not be applied to operate

retroactively against any person who receives an inadvertently mis-designated or
undesignated document that is later corrected pursuant to paragraph 4 above.
14.

Nothing in this Protective Order shall require production of information that a party
contends is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product
immunity, or other privilege, doctrine, right or immunity. Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Evidence 502(d), the production of a privileged or work-product-protected document is
- 19 -

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 20 of 30 PageID #: 1077

not a waiver of privilege or protection from discovery in this case or in any other federal
or state proceeding. For example, the mere production of privilege or work-productprotected documents in this case as part of a mass production is not itself a waiver in this
case or any other federal or state proceeding. A Producing Party may assert privilege or
production over produced documents at any time by notifying the receiving party in
writing of the assertion of privilege or protection. In addition, information that contains
privileged matter or attorney work product shall be immediately returned if such
information appears on its face to have been advertently produced. When a Producing
Party or Receiving Party identifies such privileged or protected information, a Receiving
Party: (1) shall not use, and shall immediately cease any prior use of, such information;
(2) shall take reasonable steps to retrieve the information from others to which the
receiving Party disclosed the information; (3) shall within five business days of the
Producing Party's request return to the Producing Party or destroy the information and
destroy all copies thereof; and (4) shall confirm to the Producing Party the destruction
under (3) above of all copies of the information not returned to the Producing Party. No
one shall use the fact or circumstances of production of the information in this Action to
argue that any privilege or protection has been waived. Notwithstanding this provision,
no Party shall be required to return or destroy any information that may exist on their
firm’s electronic back-up systems that are over-written in the normal course of business.
15.

There shall be no disclosure of any DESIGNATED MATERIAL by any person
authorized to have access thereto to any person who is not authorized for such access
under this Order. The Parties are hereby ORDERED to safeguard all such documents,

- 20 -

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 21 of 30 PageID #: 1078

information and material to protect against disclosure to any unauthorized persons or
entities.
16.

Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prejudice any Party's right to use any
DESIGNATED MATERIAL in taking testimony at any deposition or hearing provided
that the DESIGNATED MATERIAL is only disclosed to a person(s) who is: (i) eligible
to have access to the DESIGNATED MATERIAL by virtue of his or her employment
with the designating Party, (ii) identified in the DESIGNATED MATERIAL as an
author, addressee, or copy recipient of such information, (iii) although not identified as an
author, addressee, or copy recipient of such DESIGNATED MATERIAL, has, in the
ordinary course of business, seen such DESIGNATED MATERIAL, (iv) a current or
former officer, director or employee of the Producing Party or a current or former officer,
director or employee of a company affiliated with the Producing Party; (v) counsel for a
Party, including outside counsel and in-house counsel (subject to paragraphs 6, 10, and
11(n) of this Order); (vi) an independent contractor, consultant, and/or expert retained for
the purpose of this litigation; (vii) court reporters and videographers; (viii) the Court; or
(ix) other persons entitled hereunder to access to DESIGNATED MATERIAL.
DESIGNATED MATERIAL shall not be disclosed to any other persons unless prior
authorization is obtained from counsel representing the Producing Party or from the
Court.

17.

Parties may, at the deposition or hearing or within thirty (30) days after receipt of a
deposition or hearing transcript, designate the deposition or hearing transcript or any
portion thereof as "CONFIDENTIAL," "RESTRICTED - ATTORNEY' EYES ONLY,"
"RESTRICTED - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY – PROSECUTION BAR," or
- 21 -

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 22 of 30 PageID #: 1079

"RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE" pursuant to this Order. Access to
the deposition or hearing transcript so designated shall be limited in accordance with the
terms of this Order. Until expiration of the 30-day period, the entire deposition or
hearing transcript shall be treated as RESTRICTED ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.
18.

Native Files. Where electronic files and documents are produced in native electronic
format, such electronic files and documents shall be designated for protection under this
Order by appending to the file names or designators information indicating whether the
file

contains

CONFIDENTIAL,

RESTRICTED

ATTORNEYS'

EYES

ONLY,

RESTRICTED - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY – PROSECUTION BAR or
RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE material, or shall use any other
reasonable method for so designating DESIGNATED MATERIAL produced in
electronic format. When electronic files or documents are printed for use at deposition, in
a court proceeding, or for provision in printed form to an expert or consultant preapproved pursuant to Paragraph 6(d), or for any other reason consistent with the
provisions of this Protective Order, the party printing the electronic files or documents
shall affix a legend to the printed document corresponding to the designation of the
Designating Party and including the production number and designation associated with
the native file.
19.

Any DESIGNATED MATERIAL that is filed with the Court shall be filed under seal and
shall remain under seal until further order of the Court.

The filing party shall be

responsible for informing the Clerk of the Court that the filing should be sealed and for
placing the legend "FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER"
above the caption and conspicuously on each page of the filing. Exhibits to a filing shall
- 22 -

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 23 of 30 PageID #: 1080

conform to the labeling requirements set forth in this Order. If a pretrial pleading filed
with the Court, or an exhibit thereto, discloses or relies on confidential documents,
information or material, such confidential portions shall be redacted to the extent
necessary and the pleading or exhibit filed publicly with the Court.
20.

A Party may request in writing to the other Party that the designation given to any
DESIGNATED MATERIAL be modified or withdrawn. If the designating Party does
not agree to redesignation within ten (10) days of receipt of the written request, the
requesting Party may apply to the Court for relief. Upon any such application to the
Court, the burden shall be on the designating Party to show why its classification is
proper. Such application shall be treated procedurally as a motion to compel pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37, subject to the Rule's provisions relating to sanctions.
In making such application, the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
the Local Rules of the Court shall be met. Pending the Court's determination of the
application, the designation of the designating Party shall be maintained.

21.

No DESIGNATED MATERIAL may leave the territorial boundaries of the United States
of America. Without limitation, this prohibition extends to DESIGNATED MATERIAL
(including copies) in physical and electronic form. The viewing of DESIGNATED
MATERIAL through electronic means outside the territorial limits of the United States of
America is similarly prohibited. Notwithstanding this prohibition, DESIGNATED
MATERIAL, exclusive of material designated RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL ‑
SOURCE CODE, and to the extent otherwise permitted by law, may be taken outside the
territorial limits of the United States if it is reasonably necessary for a deposition taken in
a foreign country. The restrictions contained within this paragraph may be amended
- 23 -

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 24 of 30 PageID #: 1081

through the consent of the producing Party to the extent that such agreed to procedures
conform with applicable export control laws and regulations.
22.

Each outside consultant or expert to whom DESIGNATED MATERIAL is disclosed in
accordance with the terms of this Order shall be advised by counsel of the terms of this
Order, shall be informed that he or she is subject to the terms and conditions of this
Order, and shall sign an acknowledgment that he or she has received a copy of, has read,
and has agreed to be bound by this Order. A copy of the acknowledgment form is
attached as Appendix A. It is expressly contemplated that the protections and obligations
provided under this Order apply to non-parties who produce or otherwise provide
DESIGNATED MATERIAL.

23.

To the extent that discovery or testimony is taken of Third Parties, the Third Parties may
designate as "CONFIDENTIAL," “RESTRICTED - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY –
PROSECUTION BAR,” or "RESTRICTED -- ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" any
documents, information or other material, in whole or in part, produced or give by such
Third Parties.

The Third Parties shall have ten (10) days after production of such

documents, information or other materials to make such a designation. Until that time
period lapses or until such a designation has been made, whichever occurs sooner, all
documents, information or other material so produced or given shall be treated as
"RESTRICTED ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY" in accordance with this Order.
24.

Within 60 days after a final non-appealable judgment or order, or the complete settlement
of all claims asserted against all parties in this action, each Party must return all materials
designated by any other Producing Party or Third Party under this Order to the Producing
Party or Third Party, or destroy such material, including all copies thereof, and provide to
- 24 -

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 25 of 30 PageID #: 1082

the Producing Party or Third Party a written certification of compliance with this
provision. Notwithstanding this provision, outside counsel of record are entitled to retain
archival copies of all pleadings, filings, or other documents served by or on any Party or
Third Party, trial, deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal memoranda, correspondence,
expert reports, attorney work product, and consultant and expert work product, and
exhibits to any of these materials, even if such materials reflect materials designated
under this Order. Notwithstanding this provision, outside litigation counsel shall not be
required to delete information that may reside on their firm’s electronic back-up systems
that are over-written in the normal course of business. Any such archival and/or backup
copies of materials designated under this Order shall remain subject to the provisions of
this Order.
25.

The failure to designate documents, information or material in accordance with this Order
and the failure to object to a designation at a given time shall not preclude the filing of a
motion at a later date seeking to impose such designation or challenging the propriety
thereof. The entry of this Order and/or the production of documents, information and
material hereunder shall in no way constitute a waiver of any objection to the furnishing
thereof, all such objections being hereby preserved.

26.

Any Party knowing or believing that any other party is in violation of or intends to violate
this Order and has raised the question of violation or potential violation with the opposing
party and has been unable to resolve the matter by agreement may move the Court for
such relief as may be appropriate in the circumstances. Pending disposition of the motion
by the Court, the Party alleged to be in violation of or intending to violate this Order shall

- 25 -

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 26 of 30 PageID #: 1083

discontinue the performance of and/or shall not undertake the further performance of any
action alleged to constitute a violation of this Order.
27.

Production of DESIGNATED MATERIAL by each of the Parties shall not be deemed a
publication of the documents, information and material (or the contents thereof) produced
so as to void or make voidable whatever claim the Parties may have as to the proprietary
and confidential nature of the documents, information or other material or its contents.

28.

Nothing in this Order shall be construed to effect an abrogation, waiver or limitation of
any kind on the rights of each of the Parties to assert any applicable discovery or trial
privilege.

29.

If at any time documents containing DESIGNATED MATERIAL are subpoenaed by any
court, arbitral, administrative or legislative body, or are otherwise requested in discovery,
the person to whom the subpoena or other request is directed shall immediately give
written notice thereof to every party who has produced such documents and to its counsel
and shall provide each such party with an opportunity to object to the production of such
documents. If a Producing Party does not take steps to prevent disclosure of such
documents within ten days of the date written notice is given, the party to whom the
referenced subpoena is directed may produce such documents in response thereto, but
shall take all reasonable measures to have such documents treated in accordance with
terms of this Protective Order.

30.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas is responsible for the
interpretation and enforcement of this Agreed Protective Order. After termination of this
litigation, the provisions of this Agreed Protective Order shall continue to be binding
except with respect to those documents and information that become a matter of public
- 26 -

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 27 of 30 PageID #: 1084

record. This Court retains and shall have continuing jurisdiction over the parties and
recipients of the DESIGNATED MATERIAL for enforcement of the provision of this
Agreed Protective Order following termination of this litigation. All disputes concerning
DESIGNATED MATERIAL produced under the protection of this Agreed Protective
Order shall be resolved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas.
31.

Each of the Parties shall also retain the right to file a motion with the Court (a) to modify
this Order to allow disclosure of DESIGNATED MATERIAL to additional persons or
entities if reasonably necessary to prepare and present this Action and (b) to apply for
additional protection of DESIGNATED MATERIAL. In the event such an application is
made, all persons described therein shall be bound by the terms of this Order unless and
until it is modified by the Court. This Order is also subject to revocation or modification
by written agreement of the Parties (or, as applicable, the Parties and non-parties).

32.

Mock jurors hired by jury consultants in connection with this litigation may not view or
receive any DESIGNATED MATERIALS; but may view presentations or summaries
derived from DESIGNATED MATERIALS, not including Source Code Material
provided: (1) they are not affiliated with any party to this case or their direct competitor;
(2) they agree in writing to be bound by confidentiality and not to disclose the content or
substance of any such derivative materials to any other person outside the jury research
exercise; and (3) they are not themselves given custody of any DESIGNATED
MATERIALS or of any derivative materials, nor permitted to remove any presentations,
questionnaires or notes taken during the exercise from any room in which the research is
conducted. For purposes of this paragraph, excerpts from depositions shall not be
- 27 -

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 28 of 30 PageID #: 1085

considered DESIGNATED MATERIALS, so long as the excerpts do not contain more
than five minutes of testimony from any single witness’s deposition.
SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.
SIGNED this 19th day of June, 2014.

____________________________________
ROY S. PAYNE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

- 28 -

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 29 of 30 PageID #: 1086

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION

ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP
AND NETSTAR TECHNOLOGIES
LLC,
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-893

Plaintiffs,
v.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.

APPENDIX A
UNDERTAKING OF EXPERTS OR CONSULTANTS REGARDING
PROTECTIVE ORDER
I, _____________________________ declare that:
1.

My address is ______________________________.
__________. My current occupation is

2.

My current employer is
.

I have received a copy of the Protective Order in this Action. I have carefully read and
understand the provisions of the Protective Order.

3.

I will comply with all of the provisions of the Protective Order. I will hold in confidence,
will not disclose to anyone not qualified under the Protective Order, and will use only for
purposes of this Action any information designated as "CONFIDENTIAL,"
"RESTRICTED -- ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY," or "RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL
SOURCE CODE" that is disclosed to me.
- 29 -

Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 90 Filed 06/19/14 Page 30 of 30 PageID #: 1087

4.

Promptly upon termination of these actions, I will return all documents and things
designated as "CONFIDENTIAL," "RESTRICTED -- ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY," or
"RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE" that came into my possession, and
all documents and things that I have prepared relating thereto, to the outside counsel for
the Party by whom I am employed.

5.

I hereby submit to the jurisdiction of this Court for the purpose of enforcement of the
Protective Order in this Action.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signature
Date

- 30 -