Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc.

Filing 192

Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc.

Doc. 192

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 192

Filed 04/23/2007

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. BLOCKBUSTER, INC., Defendant(s). ___________________________________/ Without objection from Plaintiff, Defendant submitted to the Court minutes of the Board of Directors of Blockbuster, Inc. for in camera review. Along with those minutes, Defendant submitted to the Court a redaction log of Blockbuster's Board of Directors' minutes indicating the privilege or other protection asserted with respect to each proposed redaction. The Court has reviewed the Board of Directors' minutes in detail and has also reviewed each of the proposed redactions. The Court agrees with the grounds asserted for all of the redactions except those set forth in the next paragraph. Defendant has asserted that the redacted materials are not relevant to the subject matter of this action, and also contain highly sensitive trade secrets or personal and private financial and other information. With respect to those redactions, except as set forth in the next paragraph, the Court agrees that the redacted material has nothing to do with this lawsuit and contains sensitive financial information. Lastly, there are several redactions based on the assertion of the attorneyclient privilege, and the Court finds that the privilege has been properly applied and those redactions are also appropriate, except as set forth below. NETFLIX, INC., Plaintiff(s), Case No. C-06-2361 WHA (JCS) ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S REDACTION OF BOARD MINUTES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 192

Filed 04/23/2007

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

However, the following redaction numbers1 were improperly redacted. The Court finds that the information redacted is not protected by any privilege and is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, Defendant shall produce in unredacted form the materials covered by the following redaction numbers: 2, 11, 24, 37, 38, 65, and 126. The Court notes that the attorney-client privilege was improperly asserted with respect to redaction number 174. However, the information contained in that paragraph has nothing to do with this lawsuit. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2007

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

_______________________________ JOSEPH C. SPERO United States Magistrate Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In the redaction log, Defendant refers to each of its redactions by number. The Court has adopted this nomenclature.
1

2