IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE XPOINT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION NO. v. : 09-cv-00026-SLR INTEL CORPORATION, ET AL. Defendants. : October 28, 2010 SPECIAL MASTER ORDER NO. 20 Subject: Motion of Xpoint Seeking to Take Oral Deposition Under Fed R. Civ. P. 30 of David Majors This Special Master Order (SMO) relates to the motion of Xpoint in this Discovery Matter (DM105) wherein Xpoint seeks to take the oral deposition under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 of David Majors, the in-house counsel of Symantec. In Xpoint’s letter motion to the court of October 20, 2010, it seeks to compel the deposition of Symantec’s in-house counsel, David Majors (“Majors”), for the reason that Majors verified Symantec’s responses tocertain of Xpoint’s interrogatories. Those responses were contained in Symantec’s supplemental responses to Xpoint’s interrogatories and Symantec’s third supplemental responses to Xpoint’s interrogatories, respectively. The parties have furnished the SM with their arguments and legal authorities in their respective letter briefs. The SM has considered those submissions, as well as related presentations made at the hearing held on Friday, October 22, 2010 at the Federal Courthouse in Wilmington. After consideration of those materials and presentations, the SM concludes a follows: A. _ If David Majors is a person with the knowledge of the facts in Symantec’s responses to Xpoint’s interrogatories and/or the person who has possession or control of the documents that contain facts included in any of the answers to Xpoint’s interrogatories that he verified, Xpoint’s motion to take David Majors’ deposition under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 is GRANTED in respect to any necessary inquiry concerning those facts in verified documents that David Majors has personal 2knowledge of or necessary questions concerning facts in verified documents that David Majors has possession or control of. B. If David Majors does not have personal knowledge of any of the facts, or knowledge of any of the facts in documents in his possession or under his control, which facts were verified by him in response to Xpoint’s interrogatories, Symantec’s opposition to Xpoint’s motion to take David Majors’ deposition under Rule 30 is GRANTED, and Xpoint’s motion to take that deposition is DENIED. C. If it is Symantec’s position that the ruling in Paragraph B above is to apply, a condition of allowing the ruling DENYING Xpoint’s motion to take David Major’s deposition shall be conditioned upon the filing and service forthwith by David Majors of a declaration under oath that will support his position that the knowledge of the facts set forth in the answers to Xpoint’s interrogatories that David Majors verified are not known by him and are either known by other persons upon whom he relied for their accuracy and truth, or are contained in documents in the possession or control of other persons whose statements of 3accuracy and truthfulness concerning those documents upon which he relied. There shall be included in David Majors’ Declaration the names and last known addresses of all persons who either have knowledge of facts and/or have possession or control of documents that contain facts that were verified by David Majors in Symantec’s responses. SO ORDERED: Lotfis C. Bechtle, Special Master