Judge Lynn granted the motion to compel the printing of the additional 39 pages of source code which was requested shortly after the fact discovery deadline. Both parties had already consented to printing slightly in excess of the 200 page limit.
Judge Pittman denied the parties’ joint motion for entry of a protective order, finding that it failed to identify any reason for its entry. But the order pointed out that the parties were not left without recourse to protect their confidential information, and identified several options.
Desbenoit, CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Plaintiff sought “Corrective Actions and Sanctions for Violation of Protective Order and Abuse Of Settlement Process”.
Judge Palermo’s order has more action than a lot of movies. For patent practitioners at least.
The court granted the motion in part, providing relief from information disposal requirements, and finding other proposed changes unnecessary.
This order provides some guidance when the court’s form is perhaps your best option. And how not to argue otherwise.
Generally, protective orders prohibit the use of information outside of the case. The court was asked to modify the order in this case to permit such use.
One of the issues that comes up sometimes in a protective order is whether there should be a prosecution bar, and if so, its scope.
This is a fight over how many pages of printouts a party can make of source code, with a dispute over the scope of the defendant’s production on the side.
The defendant alleged that certain counsel for Proven violated the Acquisition Bar and Competitive Decisionmaker sections of the Protective Order. And that an expert wouldn’t answer yes or no.
