Case 5:22-cv-01020-JLS-SP Document 98 Filed 04/06/23 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:602
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Rudolph A. Telscher, Jr.*
`rudy.telscher@huschblackwell.com
`Paul L. Smelcer*
`paul.smelcer@huschblackwell.com
`Samantha R. Sweet*
`samantha.sweet@huschblackwell.com
`HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
`8001 Forsyth Boulevard
`Suite 1500
`St. Louis, Missouri 63105
`314-480-1500 Telephone
`314-480-1505 Facsimile
`*Pro Hac Vice
`
`Karen Luong
`karen.luong@huschblackwell.com
`HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
`355 South Grand Avenue
`Suite 2850
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`213-337-6559 Telephone
`213-337-6551 Facsimile
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Nautilus, Inc.
`
`(additional counsel listed on next page)
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`NAUTILUS, INC.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`VEVOR CORPORATION, et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:22-cv-01020-JLS-SP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:22-cv-01020-JLS-SP
`
`STIPULATED ORDER UNDER
`FED. R. EVID. 502(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STIPULATED ORDER UNDER
`FED. R. EVID. 502(d)
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01020-JLS-SP Document 98 Filed 04/06/23 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:603
`
`
`Shengmao Mu
`smu@whitewoodlaw.com
`WHITEWOOD LAW
`99 South Almaden Boulevard Suite 600
`San Jose, CA 95113
`917-858-8018 Telephone
`917-591-0618 Facsimile
`
`David A. Sergenian
`david@sergenianlaw.com
`SERGENIAN LAW
`2355 Westwood Blvd, #529
`Los Angeles, CA 90064
`213-435-2035 Telephone
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Sanven Corporation
`and James Liu
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case No. 5:22-cv-01020-JLS-SP
`
`
`2
`
`STIPULATED ORDER UNDER
`FED. R. EVID. 502(d)
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01020-JLS-SP Document 98 Filed 04/06/23 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:604
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff Nautilus, Inc.
`(“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Sanven Corporation and Fuyu Jiao, (“Defendants”
`and collectively with Plaintiff, the “Parties”), through their respective attorneys of
`record, stipulate as follows:
`WHEREAS, the documents and information, both electronically-stored and
`hard copy, produced during discovery in this case may be voluminous given the
`complex nature of this case; and
`WHEREAS, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(d), the parties seek to ameliorate
`costs and risks associated with the production of voluminous documents and
`information and resolving disputes regarding privilege,
`THEREFORE, this Court orders as follows:
`No Waiver by Disclosure. This order is entered pursuant to Rule
`1.
`502(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Subject to the provisions of this Order, if
`a party (the “Disclosing Party”) discloses information in connection with the
`pending litigation that the Disclosing Party thereafter claims to be privileged or
`protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product protection (“Protected
`Information”), the disclosure of that Protected Information will not constitute or
`be deemed a waiver or forfeiture—in this or any other action, State or Federal—of
`any claim of privilege or work product protection that the Disclosing Party would
`otherwise be entitled to assert with respect to the Protected Information and its
`subject matter.
`Notification Requirements; Best Efforts of Receiving Party. A
`2.
`Disclosing Party must promptly notify the party receiving the Protected
`Information (the “Receiving Party”), in writing, that it has disclosed that Protected
`Information without intending a waiver by the disclosure. Upon such notification,
`the Receiving Party must—unless it contests the claim of attorney-client privilege
`or work product protection in accordance with paragraph (3)—promptly (i) notify
`the Disclosing Party that it will make best efforts to identify and return, sequester
`STIPULATED ORDER UNDER
`3
`FED. R. EVID. 502(d)
`
`Case No. 5:22-cv-01020-JLS-SP
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01020-JLS-SP Document 98 Filed 04/06/23 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:605
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`or destroy (or in the case of electronically stored information, delete) the Protected
`Information and any reasonably accessible copies it has and (ii) provide a
`certification that it will cease further review, dissemination, and use of the
`Protected Information. Upon request by the Receiving Party, the Disclosing Party
`must explain as specifically as possible why the Protected Information is
`privileged. For purposes of this Order, if Protected Information that has been
`stored on a source of electronically stored information that is not reasonably
`accessible, such as backup storage media, is sequestered, the Receiving Party must
`promptly take steps to delete or sequester the restored protected information if and
`when such data is retrieved.
`Contesting Claim of Privilege or Work Product Protection. If the
`3.
`Receiving Party contests the claim of attorney-client privilege or work product
`protection, the Receiving Party must move the Court for an Order compelling
`disclosure of the information claimed as unprotected (a “Disclosure Motion”). The
`Disclosure Motion must be filed under seal and must not assert as a ground for
`compelling disclosure the fact or circumstances of the disclosure. Pending
`resolution of the Disclosure Motion, the Receiving Party must not use the
`challenged information in any way or disclose it to any person other than those
`required by law to be served with a copy of the sealed Disclosure Motion.
`Stipulated Time Periods. The parties may stipulate to time periods
`4.
`for the activity required by paragraphs (2) and (3).
`Attorney’s Ethical Responsibilities. Nothing in this order overrides
`5.
`any attorney’s ethical responsibilities to refrain from examining or disclosing
`materials that the attorney knows or reasonably should know to be privileged and
`to inform the Disclosing Party that such materials have been produced.
`Burden of Proving Privilege or Work-Product Protection. The
`6.
`Disclosing Party retains the burden—upon challenge pursuant to paragraph (3)—
`of establishing the privileged or protected nature of the Protected Information.
`STIPULATED ORDER UNDER
`4
`FED. R. EVID. 502(d)
`
`Case No. 5:22-cv-01020-JLS-SP
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01020-JLS-SP Document 98 Filed 04/06/23 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:606
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`In camera Review. Nothing in this Order limits the right of any
`7.
`party to petition the Court for an in camera review of the Protected Information.
`Voluntary and Subject Matter Waiver. This Order does not
`8.
`preclude a party from voluntarily waiving the attorney-client privilege or work
`product protection. The provisions of Federal Rule 502(a) apply when the
`Disclosing Party uses or indicates that it may use information produced under this
`Order to support a claim or defense.
`Rule 502(b)(2). The provisions of Federal Rule of Evidence
`9.
`502(b)(2) are inapplicable to the production of Protected Information under this
`Order.
`IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.
`
`Date: April 4, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Paul L. Smelcer
`Rudolph A. Telscher, Jr.*
`rudy.telscher@huschblackwell.com
`Paul L. Smelcer*
`paul.smelcer@huschblackwell.com
`Samantha Sweet*
`samantha.sweet@huschblackwell.com
`HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
`190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
`St. Louis, MO 63105
`314-480-1500 Telephone
`314-480-1505 Facsimile
`*Pro Hac Vice
`
`Karen Luong
`karen.luong@huschblackwell.com
`HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
`300 South Grand Avenue Ste 1500
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`213-337-6559 Telephone
`213-337-6551 Facsimile
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Nautilus, Inc.
`
`
`Date: April 4, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Shengmao Mu*__________
`(*with permission)
`Shengmao Mu
`smu@whitewoodlaw.com
`Whitewood Law
`99 S Almaden Blvd Suite 600,
`San Jose, CA, 95113
`917-858-8018
`
`David A. Sergenian
`david@sergenianlaw.com
`Sergenian Law, P.C.
`2355 Westwood Blvd. #529
`Los Angeles, CA 90064
`213-435-2035
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Sanven
`Corporation and James Liu
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:22-cv-01020-JLS-SP
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`STIPULATED ORDER UNDER
`FED. R. EVID. 502(d)
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01020-JLS-SP Document 98 Filed 04/06/23 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:607
`
`
`CERTIFICATION
`The undersigned attests that all other signatories listed, and on whose
`behalf this filing is submitted, concur in this filing’s content, and have
`authorized this filing and the use of their signature.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Paul L. Smelcer
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`DATED: April 6, 2023 _____________________________________
`SHERI PYM
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:22-cv-01020-JLS-SP
`
`
`6
`
`STIPULATED ORDER UNDER
`FED. R. EVID. 502(d)
`
`