Fickett v. Solaicx

Filing 62

ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTES AND VACATING HEARINGS by Judge Alsup granting 38 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 24 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; entered 27 Motion for Discovery (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
BRYAN FICKETT,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

No. C 10-05144 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTES
AND VACATING HEARINGS

SOLAICX, a California corporation,
Defendant.
/

16

While there is a lot of information in the amended Section 2019.210 statement, it needs to

17

be re-organized for clarity to more precisely isolate the combination of elements consisting of the

18

claimed trade secrets. The statement should be re-organized in the same way that a patent is

19

typically organized, meaning it should have a summary of the trade secrets, followed by a section

20

on the background of the trade secrets and the prior art (including the plaintiff’s patent), the

21

problem to be solved, followed then by a section on a detailed description of the trade secrets

22

including its specific embodiments, and then finally the precise claimed trade secrets, each

23

numbered, and setting forth the specific elements constituting the trade secret for each, in the

24

same way claims typically appear at the end of a patent.

25

The Court has read the amended Section 2019.210 statement and thinks it is a plausible

26

effort but finds it hard to isolate the precise trade secrets claimed, it being too easy to confuse the

27

elements in the prior art with the supposed new secrets. Much of the amended statement can be

28

re-worked into an improved statement but with the above organization and precision. This should
be filed (under seal) by NOVEMBER 30, 2011. Plaintiff’s motion to file under seal (1) plaintiff’s

1

identification of trade secret and (2) plaintiff’s amended identification of trade secret is hereby

2

GRANTED. Defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s untimely reply to defendant’s opposition to

3

the administrative motion to file documents under seal is GRANTED.

4

If plaintiff wants an extension of the case management schedule in order to catch up on

statement is filed. Although relief is being granted in favor of defendant, be aware that the Court

7

understands how easy it is for defendants in trade secret cases to use Section 2019.210 as an

8

excuse for stonewalling. Any further refusals to provide discovery based on alleged shortcomings

9

in the statement will be carefully scrutinized, the Court being of the view that defendants have

10

exaggerated the shortfalls in the extant statement. Finally, it is not a proper criticism to say that

11
For the Northern District of California

lost time, then the Court will allow a reasonable extension if it is requested when the revised

6

United States District Court

5

the claimed trade secret was not kept confidential. That goes to the merits, not the clarity of the

12

claimed trade secret as listed in the Section 2019.210 statement.
*

13
14

*

*

Plaintiff also filed a motion to retain confidentiality of portions of plaintiff’s June 15,

15

2011, deposition transcript pursuant to stipulated protective order and a motion for an order that

16

portions of plaintiff’s motion to retain confidentiality and portions of the deposition transcript be

17

filed under seal. Both motions are GRANTED.

18
19

In the future, please follow the undersigned judge’s guidelines for discovery disputes.
The hearings set for 2 p.m. on November 17, 2011, are VACATED.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: November 8, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2