Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Smart Modular Technologies, Inc v. Netlist

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 17, 2012

SMART MODULAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
NETLIST, DEFENDANT.

ORDER

On September 12, 2012, the undersigned granted plaintiff's ex parte request for a protective order and issued a protective order. Dckt. No. 13. The protective order indicated that it was subject to future modification, and the undersigned specifically noted that "[i]n fact, plaintiff stated in its request for entry of this protective order that it 'is not opposed to revisiting the protective order and its terms once [defendant] has made an appearance in the case.'" Id. at 15, n.2 (citing Dckt. No. 11 at 2). Then, on October 8, 2012, defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the order granting plaintiff's request for a protective order.*fn1 Dckt. Nos. 40-42. Defendant requests that the court withdraw the previously issued protective order and enter a modified protective order (attached as Exhibit 2 to the Gibson Declaration in support of defendant's motion for reconsideration, Dckt. No. 42-2).*fn2 Specifically, defendant contends that the current protective order exposes defendant's highly confidential information to in-house access by plaintiff without permitting reciprocal access by in-house counsel for defendant, and is overly broad in restricting defendant's counsel from advising defendant on the progress of reexamination proceedings on defendant's patents. Dckt. No. 41 at 2.

Pursuant to Local Rule 303(d), oppositions to requests for reconsideration shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the request, or in this instance, by October 15, 2012. E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(d). Nonetheless, court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed a response to defendant's motion for reconsideration.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. On or before October 31, 2012, the parties shall file a stipulation modifying the protective order issued in this action or plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion for reconsideration and an explanation regarding why such opposition was not timely filed.

2. If plaintiff elects to file an opposition to defendant's motion for reconsideration, defendant shall file a reply thereto on or before November 7, 2012.

SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.