Andersen et al v. Stability AI Ltd. et al

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
[counsel on signature page]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
SARAH ANDERSEN, KARLA ORTIZ, ,
GRZEGORZ RUKOWSKI, GREGORY
MANCHESS, GERALD BROM, JINGNA
ZHANG, JULIA KAYE, ADAM ELLIS;
Individual and Representative
Plaintiffs,
v.
STABILITY AI LTD., STABILITIY AI,
INC., DEVIANTART, INC.,
MIDJOURNEY, INC., RUNWAY AI, INC.
Defendants.
Case No. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO
[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED
PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR
LITIGATION INVOLVING HIGHLY
SENSITIVE CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION AND/OR TRADE
SECRETS
1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS
Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are 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.
Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated
Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on
all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure
and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment
under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section
14.4, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential
information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and
the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material
under seal.
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
2. DEFINITIONS
2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of
information or items under this Order.
2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is
generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 26(c).
2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as
well as their support staff).
2.4 Designated House Counsel: House Counsel who seek access to “HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” information in this matter;
2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it
produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE
CODE” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY.”
2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the
medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things,
testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or
responses to discovery in this matter.
2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to
the litigation who (1) has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or
as a consultant in this action, (2) is not a past or current employee of a Party or of a Party’s
competitor, and (3) at the time of retention, is not anticipated to become an employee of a Party
or of a Party’s competitor.
2.8 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or
Items: extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items,” disclosure of which to another
Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by
less restrictive means. By way of example, such information includes, without limitation:
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
(a) documents reflecting confidential research and development efforts; and (b) financial,
technical, or other sensitive trade secret information.
2.9 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE” Information or Items:
extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items” representing computer code and
associated comments and revision histories, formulas, engineering specifications, or schematics
that define or otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or structure of software or hardware
designs, disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of
serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means.
2.10 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY”
Information or Items: extremely competitively sensitive “Confidential Information or Items,”
disclosure of which to Designated House Counsel would create a substantial risk of serious harm
that could not be avoided by less restrictive means.
2.11 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. House
Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel.
2.12 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal
entity not named as a Party to this action.
2.13 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this
action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this action
on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party.
2.14 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees,
consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs).
2.15 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery
Material in this action.
2.16 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.
2.17 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
“CONFIDENTIAL,” or as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” or as
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE” or as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY.”
2.18 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a
Producing Party.
3. SCOPE
The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material
(as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2)
all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony,
conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.
However, the protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order do not cover the following
information: (a) any information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a
Receiving Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as
a result of publication not involving a violation of this Order, including becoming part of the
public record through trial or otherwise; and (b) any information known to the Receiving Party
prior to the disclosure or obtained by the Receiving Party after the disclosure from a source who
obtained the information lawfully and under no obligation of confidentiality to the Designating
Party. Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by a separate agreement or order.
4. DURATION
Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by
this Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court
order otherwise directs. Final disposition shall be deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all
claims and defenses in this action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after
the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this action,
including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to
applicable law.
5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL
5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection. Each Party
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 4 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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 Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under this Order must take care
to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards.
To the extent it is practical to do so, the Designating Party must designate for protection only
those parts of material, documents, items, or oral or written communications that qualify – so that
other portions of the material, documents, items, or communications for which protection is not
warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order.
Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. Designations that are
shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose (e.g., to
unnecessarily encumber or retard the case development process or to impose unnecessary
expenses and burdens on other parties) expose the Designating Party to sanctions.
If it comes to a Designating Party’s attention that information or items that it designated
for protection do not qualify for protection at all or do not qualify for the level of protection
initially asserted, that Designating Party must promptly notify all other parties that it is
withdrawing the mistaken designation.
5.2 Manner and Timing of Designations. Except as otherwise provided in this Order
(see, e.g., second paragraph of section 5.2(a) below), or as otherwise stipulated or ordered,
Disclosure or Discovery
Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before
the material is disclosed or produced.
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 the legend “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’
EYES ONLY” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE” or “HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY” to each page that contains protected
material. If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, to the
extent it is practical, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g.,
by making appropriate markings in the margins) and must specify, for each portion, the level of
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 5 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
protection being asserted.
For Protected Material that is produced in native electronic format, the designated legend
must be included in the file name and on any slipsheets when produced.
A Party or Non-Party that makes original documents or materials available for inspection
need not designate them for protection until after the inspecting Party has indicated which
material it would like copied and produced. During the inspection and before the designation, all
of the material made available for inspection shall be deemed “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” After the inspecting Party has identified the documents it wants
copied and produced, the Producing Party must determine which documents, or portions thereof,
qualify for protection under this Order. Then, before producing the specified documents, the
Producing Party must affix the appropriate legend (“CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE
CODE” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY”) to each page
that contains Protected Material. If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies
for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by
making appropriate markings in the margins) and must specify, for each portion, the level of
protection being asserted. For avoidance of doubt, this paragraph does not apply to the
production of material designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE” prior to
being offered for inspection as set forth in Section 9 of this Order.
(b) for testimony given in deposition or in other pretrial or trial proceedings, that the
Designating Party identify on the record, before the close of the deposition, hearing, or other
proceeding, all protected testimony and specify the level of protection being asserted. When it is
impractical to identify separately each portion of testimony that is entitled to protection and it
appears that substantial portions of the testimony may qualify for protection, the Designating
Party has up to 21 days after delivery of the final version of the deposition transcript to identify
the specific portions of the testimony as to which protection is sought and to specify the level of
protection being asserted. During this 21-day period, the entire transcript will be treated as
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” Thereafter, only those portions
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 6 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
of the testimony that are appropriately designated for protection within the 21 days shall be
covered by the provisions of this Stipulated Protective Order. Alternatively, a Designating Party
may specify, at the deposition or up to 21 days afterwards, that the entire transcript shall be
treated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.”
Parties shall give the other parties notice if they reasonably expect a deposition, hearing or
other proceeding to include Protected Material so that the other parties can ensure that only
authorized individuals who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound”
(Exhibit A) are present at those proceedings. The use of a document as an exhibit at a deposition
shall not in any way affect its designation as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.”
Transcripts containing Protected Material shall have an obvious legend on the title page
that the transcript contains Protected Material, and the title page shall be followed by a list of all
pages (including line numbers as appropriate) that have been designated as Protected Material and
the level of protection being asserted by the Designating Party. The Designating Party shall
inform the court reporter of these requirements. Any transcript that is prepared before the
expiration of a 21-day period for designation shall be treated during that period as if it had been
designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” in its entirety unless
otherwise agreed. After the expiration of that period, the transcript shall be treated only as
actually designated.
(c) for information produced in some form other than documentary and for any other
tangible items, that the Producing Party affix in a prominent place on the exterior of the container
or containers in which the information or item is stored the legend “CONFIDENTIAL” or
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
SOURCE CODE” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY.” If
only a portion or portions of the information or item warrant protection, the Producing Party, to
the extent practicable, shall identify the protected portion(s) and specify the level of protection
being asserted.
5.3 Inadvertent Failures to Designate. If timely corrected, an inadvertent failure to
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 7 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
designate qualified information or items does not, standing alone, waive the Designating Party’s
right to secure protection under this Order for such material. Upon timely correction of a
designation, the Receiving Party must make reasonable efforts to assure that the material is
treated in accordance with the provisions of this Order.
6. CHALLENGING CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS
6.1 Timing of Challenges. Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of
confidentiality at any time. Unless a prompt challenge to a Designating Party’s confidentiality
designation is necessary to avoid foreseeable, substantial unfairness, unnecessary economic
burdens, or a significant disruption or delay of the litigation, a Party does not waive its right to
challenge a confidentiality designation by electing not to mount a challenge promptly after the
original designation is disclosed.
6.2 Meet and Confer. The Challenging Party shall initiate the dispute resolution
process by providing written notice of each designation it is challenging and describing the basis
for each challenge. To avoid ambiguity as to whether a challenge has been made, the written
notice must recite that the challenge to confidentiality is being made in accordance with this
specific paragraph of the Protective Order. The parties shall attempt to resolve each challenge in
good faith and must begin the process by conferring directly (in voice to voice dialogue; other
forms of communication are not sufficient) within 14 days of the date of service of notice. In
conferring, the Challenging Party must explain the basis for its belief that the confidentiality
designation was not proper and must give the Designating Party an opportunity to review the
designated material, to reconsider the circumstances, and, if no change in designation is offered,
to explain the basis for the chosen designation. A Challenging Party may proceed to the next
stage of the challenge process only if it has engaged in this meet and confer process first or
establishes that the Designating Party is unwilling to participate in the meet and confer process in
a timely manner.
6.3 Judicial Intervention. If the Parties cannot resolve a challenge without court
intervention, the Designating Party shall follow the discovery dispute procedures outlined in
Judge Orrick’s Standing Order for Civil Cases within 21 days of the initial notice of challenge or
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 8 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
within 14 days of the parties agreeing that the meet and confer process will not resolve their
dispute, whichever is earlier. Each such motion must be accompanied by a competent declaration
affirming that the movant has complied with the meet and confer requirements imposed in the
preceding paragraph. Failure by the Designating Party to follow such procedures, including the
required declaration within 21 days (or 14 days, if applicable), shall automatically waive the
confidentiality designation for each challenged designation. In addition, the Challenging Party
may follow the discovery dispute procedures outlined in Judge Orrick’s Standing Order for Civil
Cases to challenge a confidentiality designation at any time if there is good cause for doing so,
including a challenge to the designation of a deposition transcript or any portions thereof. Any
motion brought pursuant to this provision must be accompanied by a competent declaration
affirming that the movant has complied with the meet and confer requirements imposed by the
preceding paragraph.
The burden of persuasion in any such challenge proceeding shall be on the Designating
Party. Frivolous challenges and those made for an improper purpose (e.g., to harass or impose
unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) may expose the Challenging Party to
sanctions. Unless the Designating Party has waived the confidentiality designation by failing to
file a motion to retain confidentiality as described above, all parties shall continue to afford the
material in question the level of protection to which it is entitled under the Producing Party’s
designation until the court rules on the challenge.
7. ACCESS TO AND USE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL
7.1 Basic Principles. A Receiving Party may use Protected Material that is disclosed or
produced by another Party or by a Non-Party in connection with this case only for prosecuting,
defending, or attempting to settle this litigation. Such Protected Material may be disclosed only to
the categories of persons and under the conditions described in this Order. When the litigation has
been terminated, a Receiving Party must comply with the provisions of section 15 below (FINAL
DISPOSITION).
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.
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 9 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
7.2 Disclosure of “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items. 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 litigation;
(b) the officers, directors, and employees (including House Counsel) of the Receiving
Party to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation and who have signed the
“Acknowledgment 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 litigation and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and
Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A);
(d) the court and its personnel;
(e) court reporters and their staff, professional jury or trial consultants, including mock
jurors1 and Professional Vendors to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation
and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A);
(f) during their depositions, witnesses in the action to whom disclosure is reasonably
necessary and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A),
unless otherwise agreed by the Designating Party or ordered by the court. Pages of transcribed
deposition testimony or exhibits to depositions that reveal Protected Material must be separately
bound by the court reporter and may not be disclosed to anyone except as permitted under this
Stipulated Protective Order.
(g) the author or recipient of a document containing the information or a custodian or
other person who otherwise possessed or knew the information; and
1 Disclosure to mock jurors is acceptable with the signing of a confidentiality agreement with
provisions on dissemination and disclosure at least as strict as those included in this Protective
Order, and who have been hired by a trial consulting firm who has signed the “Acknowledgement
and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A).
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 10 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
(h) any mediator who is assigned to this matter, and their staff, who have signed the
“Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A).
7.3 Disclosure of “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” and
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE” Information or Items. Unless otherwise
ordered by the court or permitted in writing by the Designating Party, a Receiving Party may
disclose any information or item designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’
EYES ONLY” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE” 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 litigation;
(b) Designated House Counsel of the Receiving Party (1) who has no involvement in
competitive decision making, (2) to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation,
and (3) who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A);
provided, however, that Designated House Counsel shall not have access to any information or
items designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE”;
(c) Experts of the Receiving Party (1) to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this
litigation, (2) who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A),
and (3) as to whom the procedures set forth in paragraph 7.6(a)(2), below, have been followed;
(d) the court and its personnel;
(e) court reporters and their staff, professional jury or trial consultants,2 including mock
jurors and Professional Vendors to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation and
who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A);
(f) the author or recipient of a document containing the information or a custodian or other
person who otherwise possessed or knew the information; and
2 Disclosure to mock jurors of “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”
material, but not “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE” material, is acceptable with
the signing of a confidentiality agreement with provisions on dissemination and disclosure at least
as strict as those included in this Protective Order, and who have been hired by a trial consulting
firm who has signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A).
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 11 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
(g) any mediator who is assigned to this matter, and their staff, who have signed the
“Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A).
7.4 Disclosure of “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES
ONLY” Information or Items. Unless otherwise ordered by the court or permitted in writing by
the Designating Party, a Receiving Party may disclose any information or item designated
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY” 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 litigation;
(b) Experts of the Receiving Party (1) to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this
litigation, (2) who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A),
and (3) as to whom the procedures set forth in paragraph 7.6(a)(2), below, have been followed;
(c) the court and its personnel;
(d) court reporters and their staff, professional jury or trial consultants, including mock
jurors and Professional Vendors to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation and
who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A);
(e) the author or recipient of a document containing the information or a custodian or
other person who otherwise possessed or knew the information; and
(f) during their depositions, witnesses in the Action who are current officers, directors, or
employees of the Producing Party; and
(g) any mediator who is assigned to this matter, and their staff, who have signed the
“Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A).
7.5 For the avoidance of doubt, to the extent expert reports cite to materials designated
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY,” House Counsel may
review those reports so long as such material is redacted. Absent advance written permission
from the Designating Party, House Counsel may not access materials designated “HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY” even if such materials are cited or
appended to expert reports.
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 12 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
7.6 Procedures for Approving or Objecting to Disclosure of “HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE
CODE” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY” Information
or Items to Experts.
(a)(1) [Intentionally left blank]
(a)(2) Unless otherwise ordered by the court or agreed to in writing by the Designating
Party, a Party that seeks to disclose to an Expert (as defined in this Order) any information or item
that has been designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” or
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE
COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY” pursuant to paragraphs 7.3(c) or 7.4(b) first must make a written
request to the Designating Party that (1) identifies the general categories of “HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE
CODE” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY” information
that the Receiving Party seeks permission to disclose to the Expert, (2) sets forth the full name of
the Expert and the city and state of his or her primary residence, (3) attaches a copy of the
Expert’s current resume, (4) identifies the Expert’s current employer(s), (5) identifies each person
or entity from whom the Expert has received compensation or funding for work in his or her areas
of expertise or to whom the expert has provided professional services, including in connection
with a litigation, at any time during the preceding five years,3 and (6) identifies (by name and
number of the case, filing date, and location of court) any litigation in connection with which the
Expert has offered expert testimony, including through a declaration, report, or testimony at a
deposition or trial, during the preceding five years.
(b) A Party that makes a request and provides the information specified in the preceding
respective paragraphs may disclose the subject Protected Material to the identified Expert unless,
3 If the Expert believes any of this information is subject to a confidentiality obligation to a third-party, then the
Expert should provide whatever information the Expert believes can be disclosed without violating any
confidentiality agreements, and the Party seeking to disclose to the Expert shall be available to meet and confer with
the Designating Party regarding any such engagement.
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 13 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
within 14 days of delivering the request, the Party receives a written objection from the
Designating Party. Any such objection must set forth in detail the grounds on which it is based.
(c) A Party that receives a timely written objection must meet and confer with the
Designating Party (through direct voice to voice dialogue) to try to resolve the matter by
agreement within seven days of the written objection. If no agreement is reached, the Party
seeking to make the disclosure to the Expert may follow the discovery dispute procedures
outlined in Judge Orrick’s Standing Order for Civil Cases seeking permission from the court to do
so. Any such motion must describe the circumstances with specificity, set forth in detail the
reasons why the disclosure to the Expert is reasonably necessary, assess the risk of harm that the
disclosure would entail, and suggest any additional means that could be used to reduce that risk.
In addition, any such motion must be accompanied by a competent declaration describing the
parties’ efforts to resolve the matter by agreement (i.e., the extent and the content of the meet and
confer discussions) and setting forth the reasons advanced by the Designating Party for its refusal
to approve the disclosure.
In any such proceeding, the Party opposing disclosure to the Expert shall bear the burden
of proving that the risk of harm that the disclosure would entail (under the safeguards proposed)
outweighs the Receiving Party’s need to disclose the Protected Material to its Expert.
8. PROSECUTION BAR
Absent written consent from the Producing Party, any individual who receives access to
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
SOURCE CODE” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY”
information shall not be involved in the prosecution of patents or patent applications before any
foreign or domestic agency, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“the Patent
Office”), relating to the subject matter of the highly confidential technical information received
by such individual. For purposes of this paragraph, “prosecution” includes directly or indirectly
drafting, amending, advising, or otherwise affecting the scope or maintenance of patent claims.4
4 Prosecution includes, for example, original prosecution, reissue, and reexamination proceedings.
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 14 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
To avoid any doubt, “prosecution” as used in this paragraph does not include representing a party
challenging a patent before a domestic or foreign agency (including, but not limited to, a reissue
protest, ex parte reexamination, post-grant review, or inter partes review). This Prosecution Bar
shall begin when access to “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” or
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE
COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY” information is first received by the affected individual and shall end
two (2) years after final termination of this action.
9. SOURCE CODE
(a) To the extent production of source code becomes necessary in this case, a
Producing Party may designate source code as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - SOURCE CODE”
if it comprises or includes confidential, proprietary or trade secret source code.
(b) Protected Material designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE
CODE” shall be subject to all of the protections afforded to “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” information, including the Prosecution Bar set forth in Paragraph
8, and may be disclosed only to the individuals to whom “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” information may be disclosed, as set forth in Paragraphs 7.3 and
7.4.
(c) Any source code produced in discovery shall be made available for inspection, in a
format allowing it to be reasonably reviewed and searched, during normal business hours (9:00
am to 6:00 pm local time) or at other mutually agreeable times, at an office of the Producing
Party’s counsel or another mutually agreed upon location. The source code shall be made
available for inspection on a secured computer (“Source Code Computer”) in a secured room.
Such inspection shall occur upon reasonable notice to the Producing Party, which must not be less
than two (2) business days in advance of the requested inspection. While in the room containing
the Source Code Computer, the Receiving Party is prohibited from accessing any device with
Internet access or network access to other computers, and the Receiving Party shall not copy,
remove, or otherwise transfer any portion of the source code onto any recordable media or
recordable device. The Producing Party may visually monitor the activities of the Receiving
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 15 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
Party’s representatives during any source code review, but only to ensure that there is no
unauthorized recording, copying, or transmission of the source code. All persons entering the
inspection room where the Source Code is being viewed shall sign a log that includes the name of
persons who enter the room and the dates and times when they arrive and depart for the day.
(d) The Receiving Party may request paper copies of limited portions of source code
that are reasonably necessary for the preparation of court filings, pleadings, expert reports, or
other papers, or for deposition or trial, but shall not request paper copies for the purposes of
reviewing the source code other than electronically as set forth in paragraph (c) in the first
instance. The Producing Party shall, within three (3) business days, provide copies of all such
source code in paper form, including bates numbers and the label “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -
SOURCE CODE.” The Producing Party may challenge the amount of source code requested in
hard copy form pursuant to the dispute resolution procedure and timeframes set forth in
Paragraph 6 whereby the Producing Party is the “Challenging Party” and the Receiving Party is
the “Designating Party” for purposes of dispute resolution.
(e) The Receiving Party shall maintain a record of any individual who has inspected
any portion of the source code in electronic or paper form. The Receiving Party shall maintain all
paper copies of any printed portions of the source code in a secured, locked area. The Receiving
Party shall not create any electronic or other images of the paper copies and shall not convert any
of the information contained in the paper copies into any electronic format. The Receiving Party
shall only make additional paper copies if such additional copies are (1) necessary to prepare
court filings, pleadings, or other papers (including a testifying expert’s expert report), (2)
necessary for deposition, or (3) otherwise necessary for the preparation of its case. Any paper
copies used during a deposition shall be retrieved by the Producing Party at the end of each day
and must not be given to or left with a court reporter or any other unauthorized individual.
(f) The Producing Party shall install tools that are necessary and sufficient for viewing
the Source Code produced for inspection on the Source Code Computer. The Parties shall meet
and confer regarding any additional tools that the Receiving Party may request be added. To the
extent additional tools are provided at the request of the Receiving Party, the Receiving Party is
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 16 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
responsible for securing the appropriate licenses to such software tools.
(g) No recordable media or recordable devices, including, without limitation, sound
recorders, computers, peripheral equipment, cameras, CDs, DVDs, or drives of any kind, will be
permitted into the Source Code review room. Cellular telephones may be permitted into the
Source Code review room, but they must be powered off before entering.
(h) The Receiving Party’s Outside Counsel and/or experts/consultants will be entitled
to take notes relating to the Source Code but may not copy the Source Code into the notes. For
avoidance of doubt, the Receiving Party may take these notes with them out of the room
containing the Source Code and transfer their contents to electronic form (e.g., by scanning or
typing).
10. PROTECTED MATERIAL SUBPOENAED OR ORDERED PRODUCED IN OTHER
LITIGATION
If a Party is served with a subpoena or a court order issued in other litigation that compels
disclosure of any information or items designated in this action as “CONFIDENTIAL” or
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
SOURCE CODE” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY”
that Party must:
(a) promptly notify in writing the Designating Party. Such notification shall include a
copy of the subpoena or court order;
(b) promptly notify in writing the party who caused the subpoena or order to issue in the
other litigation that some or all of the material covered by the subpoena or order is subject to this
Protective Order. Such notification shall include a copy of this Stipulated Protective Order; and
(c) cooperate with respect to all reasonable procedures sought to be pursued by the
Designating Party whose Protected Material may be affected.
If the Designating Party timely seeks a protective order, the Party served with the
subpoena or court order shall not produce any information designated in this action as
“CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” or
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 17 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY” before a determination by the court from which the subpoena or
order issued, unless the Party has obtained the Designating Party’s permission. The Designating
Party shall bear the burden and expense of seeking protection in that court of its confidential
material – and nothing in these provisions should be construed as authorizing or encouraging a
Receiving Party in this action to disobey a lawful directive from another court.
11. A NON-PARTY’S PROTECTED MATERIAL SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED IN THIS
LITIGATION
(a) The terms of this Order are applicable to information produced by a Non-Party in
this action and designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE” or
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY.” Such information
produced by Non-Parties in connection with this litigation is protected by the remedies and relief
provided by this Order. Nothing in these provisions should be construed as prohibiting a Non-
Party from seeking additional protections.
(b) In the event that a Party is required, by a valid discovery request, to produce a
Non-Party’s confidential information in its possession, and the Party is subject to an agreement
with the Non-Party not to produce the Non-Party’s confidential information, then the Party shall:
1. promptly notify in writing the Requesting Party and the Non-Party that
some or all of the information requested is subject to a confidentiality agreement with a Non-
Party;
2. promptly provide the Non-Party with a copy of the Stipulated Protective
Order in this litigation, the relevant discovery request(s), and a reasonably specific description of
the information requested; and
3. make the information requested available for inspection by the Non-Party.
(c) If the Non-Party fails to object or seek a protective order from this court within 14
days of receiving the notice and accompanying information, the Producing Party may produce the
Non-Party’s confidential information responsive to the discovery request, unless doing so would
not comply with a contractual obligation of the Producing Party to the Non-Party to provide
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 18 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
notice longer than 14 days, in which case the applicable notice period shall be such contractual
obligation period. Regardless of such period, the Producing Party shall endeavor to resolve any
concerns regarding notice within 30 days. If the Non-Party timely seeks a protective order, the
Producing 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. Absent a
court order to the contrary, the Non-Party shall bear the burden and expense of seeking protection
in this court of its Protected Material.
(d) Any discovery requests, including subpoena and deposition notices, propounded to
Non-Parties must be accompanied by a copy of this Stipulated Protective Order.
12. UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL
If a Receiving Party learns that, by inadvertence or otherwise, it has disclosed Protected
Material to any person or in any circumstance not authorized under this Stipulated Protective
Order, the Receiving Party must immediately (a) notify in writing the Designating Party of the
unauthorized disclosures, (b) use its best efforts to retrieve all unauthorized copies of the
Protected Material, (c) inform the person or persons to whom unauthorized disclosures were
made of all the terms of this Order, and (d) request such person or persons to execute the
“Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” that is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
13. INADVERTENT PRODUCTION OF PRIVILEGED OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED
MATERIAL
When a Producing Party gives notice to Receiving Parties that certain inadvertently
produced material is subject to a claim of privilege or other protection, the obligations of the
Receiving Parties are those set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B). This
provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery
order that provides for production without prior privilege review. Pursuant to agreement of the
parties, the inadvertent production of material subject to a claim of privilege or other protection
shall not constitute a waiver of that privilege or other protection under Federal Rule of Evidence
502(d).
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 19 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
14. MISCELLANEOUS
14.1 Right to Further Relief. Nothing in this Order abridges the right of any person to
seek its modification by the court in the future.
14.2 Right to Assert Other Objections. By stipulating to the entry of this Protective
Order no Party waives any right it otherwise would have to object to disclosing or producing any
information or item on any ground not addressed in this Stipulated Protective Order. Similarly, no
Party waives any right to object on any ground to use in evidence of any of the material covered
by this Protective Order.
14.3 Export Control. Disclosure of Protected Material shall be subject to all applicable
laws and regulations relating to the export of technical data contained in such Protected Material,
including the release of such technical data to foreign persons or nationals in the United States or
elsewhere. The Producing Party shall be responsible for identifying any such controlled technical
data, and the Receiving Party shall take measures necessary to ensure compliance with applicable
export control laws, including confirming that no unauthorized foreign person has access to such
technical data.
Without the consent of the Producing Party, “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE
CODE” materials shall not leave the territorial boundaries of the United States of America except
when reasonably necessary for international depositions.
14.4 Filing Protected Material. Without written permission from the Designating Party
or a court order secured after appropriate notice to all interested persons, a Party may not file in
the public record in this action any Protected Material. A Party that seeks to file under seal any
Protected Material must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. Protected Material may only be filed
under seal pursuant to a court order authorizing the sealing of the specific Protected Material at
issue. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, a sealing order will issue only upon a request
establishing that the Protected Material at issue is privileged, protectable as a trade secret, or
otherwise entitled to protection under the law. If a Receiving Party's request to file Protected
Material under seal pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5 is denied by the court, then the Receiving
Party may file the Protected Material in the public record pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 20 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
unless otherwise instructed by the court.
15. FINAL DISPOSITION
Within 60 days after the final disposition of this action, as defined in paragraph 4, each
Receiving Party must return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy such
material. As used in this subdivision, “all Protected Material” includes all copies, abstracts,
compilations, summaries, and any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected
Material. Whether the Protected Material is returned or destroyed, the Receiving Party must
submit a written certification to the Producing Party (and, if not the same person or entity, to the
Designating Party) by the 60-day deadline that (1) identifies (by category, where appropriate) all
the Protected Material that was returned or destroyed and (2) affirms that the Receiving Party has
not retained any copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries or any other format reproducing or
capturing any of the Protected Material. Notwithstanding this provision, Counsel are entitled to
retain an archival copy of all pleadings, motion papers, trial, deposition, and hearing transcripts,
legal memoranda, correspondence, deposition and trial exhibits, expert reports, attorney work
product, and consultant and expert work product, even if such materials contain Protected
Material. Any such archival copies that contain or constitute Protected Material remain subject to
this Protective Order as set forth in Section 4 (DURATION).
16. CLAWBACK & RULE 502(d) ORDER
A. Non-Waiver. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), the production of any
material or information shall not be deemed to waive any privilege or work product protection in
the Litigation or in any other federal or state proceeding. Nothing in this Paragraph 16 is intended
to or shall serve to limit a Party’s right to conduct a review of any material or information for
relevance, responsiveness, and/or segregation of privileged and/or protected information before
production. The Parties stipulate that the Court should enter a Rule 502(d) Order to this end,
which shall be interpreted to provide the maximum protection allowed by Rule 502(d).
B. Assertion of a Clawback. Any Party or non-Party may request the return of any
produced material or information at any time on the grounds of privilege or work product
protection by identifying it, stating the basis for withholding such material or information from
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 21 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
production, and providing any other information that would be listed on a supplemental privilege
log.
C. Document Used in Proceedings. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties agree
that any document used by any Party in a deposition, expert report, or court filing in this action
(with the exception of a motion to determine the existence of any privilege) shall not be eligible
for protection under Rule 502(d) as a clawed-back document if the producing Party does not
clawback that document pursuant to this Protective Order within 21 calendar days of its use in
such deposition, expert report, or court filing. For a document used by a Party in a deposition,
expert report, or court filing in this action that is clawed back after 21 calendar days of its use,
Rule 502(b) shall govern any dispute with respect to the Producing Party’s potential waiver of
attorney-client privilege or work product protection with respect to the document.
D. Clawback Process. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) shall govern the
clawback of produced documents or information on the grounds of privilege or work product
protection. If a Party or non-Party requests the return of such produced material or information
then in the custody of one or more Parties, the possessing Parties shall within 7 business days:
1. Destroy or return to the requesting Party or non-Party the produced material or
information and all copies thereof, and expunge from any other document or material information
derived solely from the produced material or information; or
2. Notify the Producing Party or non-Party that it wishes to challenge the claim of
privilege or work product protection and has sequestered and will not use the material until the
issue can be resolved. The Parties agree to meet and confer regarding the claim of privilege. If, at
the conclusion of the meet and confer process, the Parties are still not in agreement, they may
bring the issue to the Court. A Party challenging a clawback request under this Paragraph 16 may
use the content of the clawed-back document for the sole purpose of filing a motion with the
Court under seal, consistent with Local Rule 79-5, that challenges whether or not the document is
privileged or work product.
E. Implementation of a Clawback. Where a Party agrees to or is ordered to destroy a
clawed back document, the Party and its counsel must delete all copies of the clawed back
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 22 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
document, including any summaries, excerpts, or portions thereof, and instruct their e-discovery
vendor to delete the document entirely from their e-discovery database. To the extent that is not
technologically feasible for a Receiving Party to destroy a clawed back document (for example, if
the clawed back document is part of a production provided on read-only Production Media such
that the clawed back document cannot be destroyed without destroying the entire Production
Media), the Parties will meet and confer as to an acceptable alternative approach.
17. AGREEMENT REGARDING EXPERT DISCOVERY
Document discovery concerning testifying experts shall be limited to the final versions of
the testifying experts’ reports and any materials relied upon by the testifying expert in forming his
or her opinion(s). Testifying experts’ notes, including any notes input directly into draft reports,
and conversations or communications with counsel will not be subject to discovery unless such
material is relied upon by a testifying expert in forming his or her final report, trial or deposition
testimony, or any opinion in this case. Per Rule 26(b)(4)(B) and for the avoidance of doubt, draft
expert reports shall not be discoverable.
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 23 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: ________________________ _____________________________________
Lisa J. Cisneros
United States Magistrate Judge
January 14, 2026
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 24 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
Dated: January 8, 2026 By: /s/ Joseph R. Saveri
Joseph R. Saveri
Joseph R. Saveri (State Bar No. 130064)
Cadio Zirpoli (State Bar No. 179108)
Christopher K.L. Young (State Bar No. 318371)
David W. Lerch (State Bar No.
Elissa A. Buchanan (State Bar No. 249996)
Kathleen J. McMahon (State Bar No. 340007)
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1505
San Francisco, California 94108
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com
cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
dlerch@saverilawfirm.com
eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com
kmcmahon@saverilawfirm.com
Matthew Butterick (State Bar No. 250953)
1920 Hillhurst Avenue, #406
Los Angeles, CA 90027
Telephone: (323) 968-2632
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
Email: mb@buttericklaw.com
Brian D. Clark (pro hac vice)
Laura M. Matson (pro hac vice)
Arielle Wagner (pro hac vice)
Eura Chang (pro hac vice)
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612)339-6900
Facsimile: (612)339-0981
Email: bdclark@locklaw.com
lmmatson@locklaw.com
aswagner@locklaw.com
echang@locklaw.com
Counsel for Individual and Representative
Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 25 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
By: /s/ Andrew M. Gass
Andrew M. Gass (SBN 259694)
Michael H. Rubin (SBN 214636)
Brittany N. Lovejoy (SBN 286813)
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, California 94111-6538
Telephone: (415) 391-0600
Email: andrew.gass@lw.com
michael.rubin@lw.com
brittany.lovejoy@lw.com
Counsel for Defendant DeviantArt, Inc
By: /s/ Joseph Gratz
Joseph Charles Gratz
Eoin Paul Connolly
Tiffany Cheung
Timothy Chen Saulsbury
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Email: jgratz@mofo.com
econnolly@mofo.com
tcheung@mofo.com
tsaulsbury@mofo.com
Allyson Roz Bennett
Laura Gilbert Remus
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000
Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
Telephone: (213) 892-5200
Email: abennett@mofo.com
lremus@mofo.com
Aditya Vijay Kamdar
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
2100 L Street NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20037
Telephone: (202) 887-1500
Email: akamdar@mofo.com
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 26 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
Mark Alan Lemley
LEX LUMINA PLLC
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (646) 906-8657
Email: mlemley@lex-lumina.com
Counsel for Defendants Stability AI
Ltd. and
Stability AI, Inc.
By: /s/ Angela Dunning
Angela Dunning (SBN 212047)
Samuel Blankenship (SBN 339905)
Kimberly Bittinger (SBN forthcoming)
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN &
HAMILTON LLP
1841 Page Mill Road, Suite 250
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1248
Telephone: (650) 815-4131
Email: adunning@cgsh.com
sblankenship@cgsh.com
kbittinger@cgsh.com
Arminda B. Bepko (pro hac vice)
Amira Perryman (pro hac vice)
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN &
HAMILTON LLP
One Liberty Plaza
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 225-2517
Email: abepko@cgsh.com
aperryman@cgsh.com
Counsel for Defendant Midjourney,
Inc.
By: /s/ Paven Malhotra
David Jason Silbert
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 27 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
Paven Malhotra
Bailey Wilson Heaps
Julia Leigh Greenberg
KEKER VAN NEST & PETERS
LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, California 94111-1809
Telephone: (415) 391-5400
Email: dsilbert@keker.com
pmalhotra@keker.com
bheaps@keker.com
jgreenberg@keker.com
Counsel for Defendant Runway AI, Inc.
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 28 of 29

[PROPOSED] AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00201-WHO
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
EXHIBIT A
ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND
I, _____________________________ [print or type full name], of
_________________ [print or type full address], declare under penalty of perjury that I have read
in its entirety and understand the Stipulated Protective Order that was issued by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on [date] in the case of ___________
Andersen, et al. v. Stability AI Ltd., et al, Case No. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO. I agree to comply with
and to be bound by all the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order and I understand and
acknowledge that failure to so comply could expose me to sanctions and punishment in the nature
of contempt. I solemnly promise that I will not disclose in any manner any information or item
that is subject to this Stipulated Protective Order to any person or entity except in strict
compliance with the provisions of this Order.
I further agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this Stipulated
Protective Order, even if such enforcement proceedings occur after termination of this action.
I hereby appoint __________________________ [print or type full name] of
_______________________________________ [print or type full address and telephone
number] as my California agent for service of process in connection with this action or any
proceedings related to enforcement of this Stipulated Protective Order.
Date: _________________________________
City and State where sworn and signed: _________________________________
Printed name: ______________________________
[printed name]
Signature: __________________________________
[signature]
Case 3:23-cv-00201-WHO Document 380 Filed 01/14/26 Page 29 of 29