Genentech, Inc. et al v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH et al

Filing 161

ORDER RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENENTECH, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, Defendant. /

No. C 08-4909 SI ORDER RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER

This order resolves the parties' disputes regarding the protective order.1 First, the parties disagree about whether information produced in this litigation should be available for use in the related ICC arbitration. The Court agrees with defendant that it is in the interest of efficiency that information exchanged under the protective order should be usable in the related arbitration, and the parties can cooperate to maintain the confidential nature of documents and information made available in that proceeding. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS defendant's proposed language. Second, the parties offer competing provisions regarding a prosecution bar. Plaintiffs' version is broader in terms of the information covered by the prosecution bar, but narrower in that it would only apply to prosecution on behalf of the parties to this litigation, while defendant's version would bar prosecution on behalf of any client. The Court ADOPTS plaintiffs' proposal for the reasons stated in plaintiffs' papers. Third, the parties disagree about whether a party should be permitted to object to disclosure of protected information to consultants after the initial objection period has passed if the objection is based

The parties' letter briefs are found at Docket Nos. 147, 150-52, 155, 158 & 159.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

upon later-discovered information. The Court finds that defendant's proposal is reasonable and should not be susceptible to abuse since the objection can only be raised if the newly-discovered information could not have been obtained previously by reasonable diligent efforts. Accordingly the Court ADOPTS defendant's proposal. The parties are directed to file a protective order reflecting the above no later than August 5, 2009.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2009

SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

2