Case Information

*1 **E-Filed 1/24/06** NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

U2 HOME ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., Case Number C 05-260 JF (PVT) Related Case C 02-3792 JF (PVT) Plaintiffs,

ORDER (1) GRANTING DEPONENT LIN’S APPLICATION FOR TIME TO REVIEW TRANSCRIPT; AND (2) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT v.

GATECHINA.COM, INC., et al.,

Defendants. [Doc. Nos. 70, 78]

Plaintiffs sued Wayne Lin (“Lin”) and others in this Court in 2002, alleging copyright infringement and related claims arising out of activity on a website known as Tigercool.com. That action was resolved by means of a Final Judgment and Consent Decree.

Plaintiffs filed the instant action in this Court in 2005, also concerning activity on the Tigercool.com website. Lin originally was named as a defendant in the 2005 action, but was dismissed without prejudice from the 2005 action.

Plaintiffs took Lin’s deposition in the 2005 action. Because he had been dismissed from the action, and understood that he was being deposed only as a third party witness, Lin appeared ORDER (1) GRANTING DEPONEN T LIN’S APPLICATION FOR TIME TO REV IEW TRANSCRIPT ETC. *2 for the deposition without counsel and without an interpreter (his native language is Mandarin Chinese). Lin requested at the deposition that he be permitted to review the deposition transcript. Lin was entitled to thirty days from completion of the transcript to review it and make changes if necessary. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e). However, Lin was not given an opportunity to review the transcript before it was sent to Plaintiffs.

On December 30, 2005, Plaintiffs filed an application for issuance of an order to show cause why Lin and his company, Gatechina, Inc., should not be adjudged in civil contempt of the Final Judgment and Consent Decree issued in the 2002 action. Plaintiffs’ application appears to be based wholly upon Lin’s deposition testimony. On January 11, 2006, Lin filed an application for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs’ application for an order to show cause, so that Lin may review his deposition transcript.

Lin is entitled to review his deposition transcript as provided in Rule 30(e). Because Lin was denied this opportunity before the transcript was given to Plaintiffs, the Court will deny without prejudice Plaintiffs’ application for an order to show cause. Plaintiffs may renew their application, if appropriate, once Lin has reviewed his deposition transcript and the transcript properly is distributed.

ORDER

(1) Lin’s application for time to review his deposition transcript is GRANTED; and (2) Plaintiffs’ application for an order to show cause re contempt is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED: 1/24/06

__________________________________ JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge *3 This Order was served on the following persons:

Alfredo A. Bismonte abismonte@mount.com, bshih@mount.com; mmcmanus@mount.com Patricia De Fonte Patricia.DeFonte@ibslaw.com, shayne.coppedge@ibslaw.com; richard.idell@ibslaw.com; will.philp@ibslaw.com Richard J. Idell richard.idell@ibslaw.com, patricia.defonte@ibslaw.com; june.hight@ibslaw.com; shayne.coppedge@ibslaw.com; will.philp@ibslaw.com Bobby T. Shih bshih@mount.com, mmcmanus@mount.com

Tiffany W. Tai tai@brtlawyers.com