Opinion
Page 1405a
184 Cal.App.4th 1405a __ Cal.Rptr.3d__ SILVACO DATA SYSTEMS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. INTEL CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent. H032895 California Court of Appeal, Sixth District May 27, 2010Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV031946
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING
RUSHING, P.J.
THE COURT:
IT IS ORDERED that the opinion filed herein on April 29, 2010, (184 Cal.App.4th 210; __ Cal.Rptr.3d __), be modified as follows and the petition for rehearing is DENIED:
1. On page 3, footnote 2, second full paragraph beginning with “A second cause” and ending with “index purpose" [184 Cal.App.4th 217, advance report, footnote 2, 2d par.], is deleted and the following paragraph is inserted in its place:
6 A second cause of overkill is that each of the appendix’s 27 volumes includes an index to the entire appendix. This would be a welcome convenience if not for the fact that the index is 103 pages long-a bulk that, replicated 27 times, consumes more than one-third of the appendix. This remarkable feat is achieved by listing not only every distinct filing (see Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.144(b)(1), 8.124(d)(1), 8.122), but every exhibit or attachment to each filing, resulting in page after page of references to exhibit titles, including lodged authorities (see preceding paragraph). This level of detail, when judiciously reserved for critical documents, might be of considerable assistance in navigating a complex record. However, when it enlarges an already overblown record to the present extent, it largely defeats the index’s purpose.
There is no change in the judgment.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.