COLLABORATION PROPERTIES, INC., a Nevada Corporation, Plaintiff, v. TANDBERG ASA, and Tandberg, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants No. C 05-01940 MHP United States District Court, N.D. California March 29, 2006 Counsel George M. Newcombe, Harrison J. Frahn, IV, Jeffrey E. Ostrow, Simpson Thacher &amp; Bartlett LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Jeremy S. Pitcock, Melissa A. Ganz, Noah M. Leibowitz, Simpson Thatcher &amp; Bartlett LLP, Victor Cole, New York, NY, for Plaintiff. I. Neel Chatterjee, Bas De Blank, Chester Wren-Ming Day, Rory Bens, Theresa Ann Sutton, William L. Anthony, Jr., Orrick Herrington &amp; Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA, for Defendants. Patel, Marilyn H., United States District Judge MEMORANDUM &amp; ORDER Re: Protective Order *1 On March 6, 2006 plaintiff Collaboration Properties, Inc. and Defendants Tandberg ASA and Tandberg, Inc. appeared before this court in connection with several pending motions, including a motion to compel production of certain of defendants' source code. The court ordered production of the source code subject to a protective order, which it requested that plaintiff submit. Plaintiff subsequently submitted a protective order, but defendants object to how it is drafted. Specifically, defendants object to two portions of plaintiff's proposed order: (1) plaintiff would permit the source code to be provided to multiple unnamed “Independent Advisors”; (2) the proposed order does not reflect certain security measures, employed by plaintiff's expert, which plaintiff described at oral argument. The court agrees with defendants that the proposed order conflicts with plaintiff's representations at oral argument. In addition, the court finds that the number of hard copies proposed by plaintiff-two for depositions and four for inclusion in expert reports-is excessive. Finally, the court finds that production of three electronic copies is also excessive. A single electronic copy is sufficient. The court therefore orders that plaintiff file, within five days of this order, an amended proposal for the protective order reflecting the following changes: 1. Defendants are required to produce a single electronic copy, which will be kept either by plaintiff's attorneys or by Kendyl Roman, plaintiff's expert. 2. The electronic copy must be maintained pursuant to the security scheme employed by Mr. Roman, as described at oral argument for the motion to compel. Mr. Roman may, as plaintiff described, place an electronic copy of the source code on the hard drive of a non-networked computer. 3. Only three hard copies may be made of the source code, total. These are to be employed both as deposition exhibits and as attachments to the expert report. IT IS SO ORDERED.