`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`IN RE: PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC ET AL., PATENT
`LITIGATION
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON
`WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`
`
`Case No. 18-md-02834-BLF
`
`
`ORDER REGARDING
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
`ORDER
`
`[Re: ECF 610]
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`v.
`
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`and LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`Defendants,
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`a Texas limited liability company, and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a
`Delaware limited liability company,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC. a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`On July 21, 2020, PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC’s (“PersonalWeb”) filed a Motion for
`
`Protective Order seeking to limit discovery by Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and
`
`Twitch Interactive, Inc. (collectively, “Amazon”). ECF 610. The dispute appears to be related to
`
`PersonalWeb’s use of certain written opinions and attorney-client communications that
`
`PersonalWeb chose to disclose in support of its opposition to Amazon’s pending Motion for
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 615 Filed 07/24/20 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`Attorneys’ Fees and Costs at ECF 593 (“Fees Motion”).
`
`Amazon’s Fees Motion is now fully briefed and scheduled to be heard on August 6, 2020 at
`
`9:00 a.m. It is unclear to the Court whether PersonalWeb’s Motion for Protective Order is relevant
`
`to any outstanding issues before the Court. Accordingly, the Court extends the deadline to oppose
`
`PersonalWeb’s Motion for Protective Order to August 20, 2020 – two weeks after the hearing on
`
`Amazon’s Fees Motion. PersonalWeb shall be prepared to explain the relevance of its Motion for
`
`Protective Order at the August 6, 2020 hearing.
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 24, 2020
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`BETH LABSON FREEMAN
`United States District Judge
`
`2
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`