APPLE INC.,Plaintiff, vs. RIVOS INC., WEN SHIH-CHIEH a/k/a RICKY WEN, BHASI KAITHAMANA, JIM HARDAGE, WEIDONG YE, LAURENT PINOT, PRABHU RAJAMANI and KAI WANG, Defendants. Case No. 5:22-CV-2637-EJD United States District Court, N.D. California Filed August 14, 2023 Counsel Arturo J. Gonzalez, Kenneth Alexander Kuwayti, Meredith Lauren Angueira, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Franciso, CA; Bryan Joseph Wilson, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Stephen J. H. Liu, Palo Alto, CA; Matthew Robert Stephens, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Diego, CA; Ryan James Malloy, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Mary Prendergast, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Nicole Mary Ang (pro hac vice), Washington, DC Attorneys for Plaintiff Apple Inc. David Eiseman, IV and Victoria Blohm Parker, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, San Francisco, CA Attorneys for Defendants Jim Hardage, Kai Wang, Laurent Pinot, Prabhu Rajamani, Weidong Ye, and Wen Shih-Chieh David Eiseman, IV, Elle Xuemeng Wang, Ryan Sadler Landes, and Victoria Blohm Parker, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, San Francisco, CA Attorneys for Defendant Rivos Inc. Michael J. Peng, Todd Michael Lander, Rosen Saba LLP, El Segundo, CA Attorneys for Stephen Swedlow Cousins, Nathanael M., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER FOLLOWING AUGUST 9, 2023 DISCOVERY HEARING Before the Court is the parties’ August 7, 2023 Joint Discovery Report (Dkt. 225) in which Defendants seek an order compelling Apple to: (i) serve a further amended list of the documents in Defendants’ production that Apple contends reflect or evidence Apple’s claimed trade secrets allegedly misappropriated by Defendants that were not previously identified in the September 14, 2022, Roffman Declaration (the“Amended List”); (ii) serve a further updated Trade Secret Disclosure that sets forth Apple’s claimed trade secrets allegedly misappropriated by Defendants to the extent those claimed trade secrets are not contained in Apple documents; and (iii) produce documents responsive to Defendants’ requests for production relating to Apple’s claimed trade secrets. The Court hereby orders as follows: 1. Apple shall provide to Defendants a further Amended List of documents, each of which has been reviewed by an attorney, and each of which Apple believes in good faith is properly included on the Amended List by August 25, 2023; 2. To the extent Apple has expanded its claimed trade secrets beyond Apple documents, Apple shall provide to Defendants a further updated Trade Secret Disclosure that identifies all of Apple’s claimed trade secrets not contained in Apple documents by September 1, 2023; 3. Apple shall produce documents responsive to the full scope of Rivos’ Request forProduction Nos. 113, 114, 120, and 121 beginning with a substantial production by August 30, 2023 and continuing on a rolling basis (in good faith, as the documents become ready for production) and with supplemental productions occurring every week, to be completed by no later than September 15, 2023; 4. Apple shall produce documents responsive to Rivos’ Request for Production No. 116 as revised below beginning with a substantial production by August 30, 2023 and continuing on a rolling basis (in good faith, as the documents become ready for production) with supplemental productions occurring every week, to be completed and by no later than September 15, 2023: RFP No. 116: Documents sufficient to show Apple’s invention, development, implementation, or commercialization of any purported trade secrets that Apple contends Rivos, any Individual Defendant, or any other Rivos employee misappropriated. In addition: To the extent that Apple seeks damages arising from Rivos’ or any of the Individual Defendants’ alleged possession, retention, use, or disclosure of any purported Apple confidential information beyond the scope of Apple’s Trade Secret Disclosure, documents sufficient to show Apple’s invention, development, implementation, or commercialization of that purported confidential information. 5. Source code produced by both parties shall be made available pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Protective Order (Dkt. 113). The Parties agree to negotiate in good faith regarding potential mutual heightened protections for certain additional information to be produced pursuant to this Order, or that has already been produced, with the understanding that disputes regarding the appropriate protection shall not alter the deadlines herein. The Parties reserve the right to challenge any designation pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Protective Order. SO ORDERED.