... THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE Elsa Vargas for Kelly Davis Courtroom Clerk Not Present Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: None Present ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT: None ...

... Division J Hearing Date: Honorable: Time: 8:30 AM - 12:00 PM 05/02/2023 SG EQUIPMENT FINANCE USA CORP., A DELAWARE CORPORATION VS SINGH ET AL BCV-22-100628 David Zulfa Clerk: Inez Trimble Court Reporter: . None ...

Discovery in this Action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted (“Protected Material”).

4.14 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors.

Designation in conformity with this Order requires: (a) for information in documentary form (e.g., paper or electronic documents, but excluding transcripts of depositions or other pretrial or trial proceedings), that the Producing Party affix at a minimum, the legend

Protected Material must be stored and maintained by a Receiving Party at a location and in a secure manner that ensures that access is limited to the persons authorized under this Order.

If the Non-Party timely seeks a protective order, the Receiving Party shall not produce any information in its possession or control that is subject to the confidentiality agreement with the Non-Party before a determination by the court.

If custody is not obtained following demand, the judgment may be enforced as a money judgmentfor the value of the property specified in the judgmentor in a supplemental order.

If the residential property that you are renting was sold ina foreclosure, you have additional time before you must vacate the premises.

If you have a periodic lease or tenancy, such as from month-to-month, you may remain in the property for 90 days after receiving a notice to quit.

You may claim your right to remain on the property byfilling it out and giving it to the sheriff or levying officer.

If you were not named in the judgmentfor possession and you occupied the premises on the date on which the unlawful detainer case was filed, you may object to the enforcement of the judgment against you.

Date: August 27, 2021 Time: 11:00 a.m. Dept: 302 [Filed concurrently with Ex Parte Application; Declarations ofAnthony Cavanaugh and Jonathan J. Boustani] mABFWHNO= oOSeNNDD

Judgment Debtor BWI Hospitality Holdings, LLC’s (“BWI”) ex parte application for a Court order to (1) stay enforcementofsister-state judgment, (2) recall and quash writ of execution, and (3) instruct the San Francisco Sheriffto release levied funds (the “Application”) cameon for hearing on an ex parte basis on August 27, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 302 of the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco, located at 400 McAllister St., San Francisco, California 94102.

The San Francisco Sheriff shall release and return all funds levied pursuant to the Writ of Execution.

The San Francisco Sheriff shall not disburse any funds to Judgment Creditor Crestline Hotels & Resorts, LLC (“Crestline”) that were levied pursuant to the Writ of Execution.

Dated: August 27 , 2021 Ethan P Schulman © Superior Court Judge

Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, trade secret, and/or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted.

2.14 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors.

Protected Material must be stored and maintained by a Receiving Party at a location and in a secure manner that ensures that access is limited to the persons authorized under this Order.

Unless otherwise ordered by the court or permitted in writing by the Designating Party, a Receiving Party may disclose any information or item designated “CONFIDENTIAL” only to: (a) the Receiving Party’s Outside Counsel of Record in this Action, as well as employees of said Outside Counsel of Record to whom it is reasonably necessary to disclose the information for this Action; (b) the officers, directors, and employees (including House Counsel) of the Receiving Party to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this Action and who have signed the “Acknowledgement and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A); (c) Experts (as defined in this Order) of the Receiving Party to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this Action and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A), and subject to compliance with Section 7.4; (d) the court and its personnel; (e) court reporters and their staff and who have signed the “Acknowledgement and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A); (f) professional jury or trial consultants, mock jurors, and Professional Vendors to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this Action and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A); (g) the author or recipient of a document containing the information or a custodian or other person who otherwise possessed or knew the information; (h) during their depositions, witnesses, and attorneys for witnesses, in the Action to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary provided: (1) the deposing party requests that the witness sign the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A); and (2) they will not be permitted to keep any confidential information unless they sign the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A), unless otherwise agreed by the Designating Party or ordered by the court.

If the Non-Party timely seeks a protective order, the Receiving Party shall not produce any information in its possession or control that is subject to the confidentiality agreement with the Non-Party before a determination by the court.

34; such requests shall be in substantially the same form as the document attached as Exhibit D to the May 25, 2021 Declaration of Seth Gold filed in this action; (2) Five interrogatories on Defendant pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ.

In Sas and SV3, LLC, the plaintiffs sought and obtained temporary restraining orders and early discovery based on evidence the defendants were actively selling counterfeit goods.

Here, unlike in Sas and SV3, LLC, Plaintiffs do not present any evidence to establish Defendant is currently manufacturing or selling infringing goods in California or the United States.

11-12, 11-15, 11-18)), this evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that Defendant is currently selling or marketing any such products or that Plaintiffs would be irreparably prejudiced if the court were to deny Plaintiffs’ request for early discovery.

/ / / / / / / / / As the evidence in the record does not establish Defendant is currently selling or manufacturing infringing products in the United States, the court finds that good cause does not exist to allow early discovery and DENIES Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application.

MURRAY COLIN CLARKE, an individual, and BIOZEAL, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. TNSG HEALTH CO., LTD., a United Kingdom Limited Company, Defendant.

The court, having read and considered the Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint and Continuance of Hearing on Preliminary Injunction Motion (“Application”) filed by specially appearing defendant TNSG Health Co., Ltd. (“TNSG Health”) and the opposition thereto filed by Plaintiffs Murray Colin Clarke and Biozeal, LLC (“Plaintiffs”), and good cause appearing, hereby GRANTS the Application and orders as follows:

The deadline for TNSG Health to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint is extended 30 days to July 1, 2021.

The hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which is currently scheduled for June 25, 2021, is VACATED and will be reset after the court determines whether it has personal jurisdiction over Defendant and subject matter jurisdiction over the claims.

United States District Judge

Location: Courtroom 7B Complaint Filed: August 17, 2020 Trial Date: March 8, 2022

Defendant AeroVironment, Inc.’s (“AeroVironment” or “Defendant”) Motion for Summary Judgment was heard by this Court on March 6, 2021.

After taking the matter under submission, the Court entered an Order on April 22, 2021, Granting AeroVironment’s Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety.

By way of the same Order, the Court denied Plaintiffs Paul E. Arlton’s and David J. Arlton’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint.

André Birotte Jr. United States District Judge and III.