`Case 1:10—cv—00258—SLR—MPT Document 543 Filed 09/16/13 Page 1 of 2 PagelD #: 12167
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE |NC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`\/\./xyx./\/xyxyg/Q
`
`Civ. No. 10—258—SLR/MPT
`
`O R D E R
`
`At Wilmington this 16th day of September, 2013, having reviewed the Report
`
`and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Thynge in connection with the issue
`
`of whether the Protective Order entered into by the parties to the above captioned
`
`litigation was violated by plaintiff and its experts, as well as the responses thereto;
`
`IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (D.l. 457) is adopted and
`
`the plaintiff’s objection rejected, as I agree with Judge Thynge that plaintiff’s
`
`interpretation of the Protective Order is nonsensical. To wit, the provision of the
`
`Protective Order in dispute provides that “[t]he Receiving Party shall not print Source
`
`Code to review blocks of Source Code elsewhere in the first instance, i.e., as an
`
`alternative to reviewing that Source Code electronically on the Source Code Computer.”
`
`This language is not difficult to understand and its purpose is clear: absent agreement
`
`othen/vise, plaintiff was not to print defendant’s Source Code. For plaintiff to argue that,
`
`while it could not print Source Code, its non—testifying expert could, is not a reasonable
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR-MPT Document 543 Filed 09/16/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 12168
`Case 1:10—cv—00258—SLR—MPT Document.543 Filed 09/16/13 Page 2 of 2 PagelD #: 12168
`
`(perhaps not even a credible) argument in my experience. Therefore,
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s request for expenses under Rule
`
`37 (D.|. 436) is granted to the extent explained in the Report and Recommendation.
`
`On or before September 30, 2013, plaintiff shall pay to defendant $13,682.08 in
`
`expenses.
`
`United States fiistrict Judge
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
