Order of Examination: Trace3, LLC v. Sycomp, A Technology Company, Inc., et al.

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

                                          COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

10

11   TRACE3,       LLC, a California limited liability         Case No.:   23CV415833
     company;
12                                                             ORDER CONCERNING PROTOCOL
13
                       Plaintiff,                              FOR NEUTRAL FORENSIC
                                                               EXAMINATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL
14           Vv.                                               DEFENDANTS’ ELECTRONIC
                                                               DEVICES
15   SYCOMP A TECHNOLOGY                 COMPANY,
     INC., a California corporation; TIMOTHY
16   CORDELL, an individual; GEOFFREY
17   PETERSON, an individual; DEVIN TOMCIK,
     an individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
18
            Defendants.
19

20

21          In the Court’s August 7, 2023 order (“Order”), the Court asked the parties “to meet and

22   confer as to a plan to retrieve [electronic] devices from the Individual Defendants, have them

23   forensically imaged, and then returned to the Individual Defendants with instructions to delete all]

24   Trace3 information.”       The Order asked the parties to provide a joint status report on these issues

25   by August 15, and the parties did provide that report to the Court by August 15.

26          After reviewing both sides’ proposed protocols, their written submissions, and their oral

27   arguments at the August 22 hearing, the Court rules as follows:

28
1        The Court generally adopts the Individual Defendants’ proposed protocol, as it
     comports better with the Order and is less intrusive than Trace3’s proposed protocol.

               2        However, the Court orders two changes to the Individual Defendants’ proposed

     protocol:

               a.       Trace3 need not rely on previously-collected images, as those were not

     necessarily imaged by a neutral forensic examiner under the authority of the Court.       To the

     extent Trace3 asks the neutral forensic examiner to create new images for devices that have been

     previously imaged, that cost should be allocated the same way other costs are being allocated.

               b        Within 3 calendar days of having the devices returned to them after imaging, the

10   Individual Defendants must provide declarations stating under oath that they have deleted all

11   Trace3 confidential information from their devices.

12             3        The Court confirms that the neutral forensic examiner will retain the mirrored

13   images.

14             4        The Court encourages the parties to meet and confer on whether, how, and when

15   searches of these mirrored images will occur.      The Court is not taking a position on those issues

16   at this time.

17             IT IS SO ORDERED.

18                                                         U—___.
     Date:           8/22/2023
19                                                    The Honorable Sunil R. Kulkarni
20                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28