STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF REGARDING SOFTWARE CODE ANALYSIS ORDER (DKT. NO. 75)

WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.

On June 20, 2014, Defendants CVPartners, Inc., Skipan LLC, Skipan SaaS LLC, Brandon Metcalf and Kent Gray (collectively "Defendants") filed a Discovery Letter Brief Regarding Software Code Analysis Order ("Defendants' Letter Brief') with this Court. Dkt. No. 75. On June 23, 2014, this Court ordered PlaintiffJobscience, Inc. ("Plaintiff') to file any response to Defendants' Letter Brief by June 24, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. Dkt. No. 76. In the same order, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer on June 26, 2014 in the Court's jury room and to attend a discovery hearing before Judge Alsup at 11:30 a.m. on June 26, 2014 if the parties could not resolve the matter. Id. On June 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed its Response to Defendants' Letter Brief. Dkt. No. 77. Pursuant to the Court's June 23 order, counsel for the parties met and conferred in the Court's jury room on June 26, 2014. See Dkt. No. 76.

After meeting and conferring, the parties resolved the discovery disputes set forth in Defendants' Letter Brief. See Dkt. No. 75. Specifically, the parties agreed to the following:

(1) Defendants will provide counsel for Plaintiff a copy of the results database(s) generated by Zeidman Consulting's (Defendants' experts) source code analysis, designated "Confidential" under the terms of the stipulated protective order regarding confidentiality. See Dkt. No. 40; see also Dkt. No. 62-1 ¶ 6. Plaintiff and its counsel can then review the results database to determine if they contend it should not be provided to Zeidman Consulting in electronic format for any reason. Concurrent with the provision of the results database(s) to counsel for Plaintiff, Defendant Brandon Metcalf will also be provided a copy of the results database(s) for his review.

(2) Counsel for Plaintiff will have two business days to review the results database(s) to determine whether Plaintiff objects to allowing Zeidman Consulting to be given an electronic copy of the results database(s) for any reason.

(3) If Plaintiff does not provide a written objection to Defendants within two business days of receiving the results database(s), an electronic copy of the results database(s) may be provided to Zeidman Consulting. If Plaintiff's counsel makes an objection within two business days of receiving the results database(s), the parties will meet and confer on the next business day after receiving the written objection.

(4) If the meet and confer efforts described in paragraph (3) above fail to resolve the outstanding dispute, Plaintiff will file a letter brief motion for a protective order preventing Zeidman Consulting from receiving an electronic copy of the results database(s) by the next court day after the meet and confer. If Plaintiff does not file a letter brief motion for a protective order by this deadline, Defendants may provide Zeidman Consulting with an electronic copy of the results database(s).

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.