Monster Cable Products, Inc. v. Diversified Repackaging Corporation et al

Filing 32

ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 8/12/2011. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
MONSTER CABLE PRODUCTS, INC.,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

No. C-10-05673-RS (DMR)
ORDER RE PARTIES’ JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER OF JULY 19,
2011

DIVERSIFIED REPACKAGING
CORPORATION, et al.,

15
16

Defendants.
___________________________________/

17
Before the court is the parties’ joint discovery letter of July 19, 2011 (“Letter”). In the
18
Letter, Plaintiff Monster Cable Products, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) requests that the court issue the Court’s
19

“Standard Protective Order”1 and compel Defendants U.S. Merchants and Diversified Repackaging

20
Corporation (together, “Defendants”) to provide Plaintiff with the identities of the sources from
21
which they obtained Plaintiff’s products. Plaintiff contends that it needs this information to bring
22

other parties who may be infringing on its trademarks into the suit.2 (Letter at 1-3.) Defendants

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Northern District of California has created several model stipulated protective orders for the
benefit of litigants. Plaintiff did not specify with “Standard Protective Order” it wants the court to issue.
2

Plaintiff also contends that it requires Defendants’ supplier lists because Defendants have raised the
first sale doctrine as an affirmative defense. (Letter at 2-3.) However, the first sale doctrine plays no role in
trademark infringement cases based upon an alleged infringer’s selling of trademarked goods that are
materially different than those sold by the trademark owner -- the exact forms of infringement which Plaintiff
accuses Defendants of performing, (see Compl. ¶¶ 14-28). Au-Tomotive Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am.,
Inc., 603 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2010); Meeker v. Meeker, No. 02-741-JSW, 2004 WL 2457793, at *10-11

1

oppose Plaintiff’s requests on the grounds that their supplier information is a trade secret, that

2

divulging the information will cause harm to their business, and, more broadly, that the information

3

lacks relevance to Plaintiff’s claims. (Letter at 5.) The court conducted a hearing on August 11,

4

2011. This order summarizes the rulings made by the court during that hearing.

5

Discovery of Trade Secrets

6

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit courts to order discovery of trade secrets3 or

7

other confidential commercial information in a manner that restricts disclosure, such as through a

8

protective order, upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech

9

(SSPF) Int’l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552, 554 (C.D. Cal. 2007). The court must strike a balance between
the discovery-seeking party’s entitlement to “all information reasonably calculated to lead to the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

discovery of admissible evidence” and the divulging party’s need for protection from “undue burden

12

. . . , including protection from misuse of trade secrets by competitors.” Brown Bag Software v.

13

Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations & quotation marks omitted). In

14

addition, the court should examine the discovery-seeking party’s claims and whether it has

15

“alternative discovery procedures” at its disposal to develop its case. Id.

16
17

Defendants’ Supplier Information
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have infringed on its trademarks by repackaging its genuine

18

products and supplying them with a new warranty. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14.) See Beltronics USA, Inc. v.

19

Midw. Inventory Distrib., LLC, 562 F.3d 1067, 1072-74 (10th Cir. 2009) (holding that warranty

20

alterations may lead to finding of trademark infringement); Enesco Corp. v. Price/Costco, Inc., 146

21

F.3d 1083, 1086 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that repackaging can constitute trademark

22

infringement). According to Plaintiff, these actions have materially altered their products, creating

23

“the potential and/or likelihood of confusion as to the source and/or quality” of the goods and

24

potentially damaging customer goodwill toward Plaintiff’s products. (Compl. ¶¶ 15.) See 15 U.S.C.

25

§ 1114(1)(a); Beltronics USA, Inc., 562 F.3d at 1072-74 (noting that sale of materially altered goods

26
27

(N.D. Cal. July 6, 2004) (not reported in F. Supp. 2d).
3

28

Courts repeatedly have found supplier lists to constitute confidential documents. Nutratech, Inc. v.
Syntech (SSPF) Int’l , Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552, 554 n.2 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (citations omitted).

2

El Greco Leather Prods. Co. v. Shoe World, Inc., 806 F.2d 392, 395 (2d Cir. 1986) (same). Plaintiff

3

also asserts that the entities who supplied Defendants and Costco with Plaintiff’s products may be

4

liable for contributory infringement. Plaintiff therefore requires their identities so that it may bring

5

them into the current action. (Letter at 3.) See Sealy, Inc. v. Easy Living, Inc., 743 F.2d 1378, 1382

6

(9th Cir. 1984) (“[I]f a . . . distributor . . . continues to supply its product to one whom it knows or

7

has reason to know is engaging in trademark infringement, the [distributor] is contributorily

8

responsible for any harm done as a result of the deceit.” (brackets in original) (emphasis removed)

9

(quoting Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 854 (1982)). In addition, Plaintiff

10

stated during the hearing that it did not have the technology or internal infrastructure in place to

11
For the Northern District of California

which leads to customer confusion and damage plaintiff’s goodwill constitutes trademark violation);

2

United States District Court

1

reliably determine the identities of Defendants’ suppliers from its products’ serial numbers. The

12

court therefore finds that Plaintiff has established good cause to compel discovery of Defendants’

13

supplier lists.

14

Thus, although Defendants’ supplier names are a protectable trade secret, they are subject to

15

discovery in this case because they are relevant to the identification of potentially contributing

16

infringers and their identities cannot be ascertained through other reasonable means. However, the

17

supplier names should be protected through an appropriate protective order that limits their use to

18

this litigation, as well as limits their disclosure to outside counsels’ attorneys’ eyes only consistent

19

with the “Highly Confidential” designation in ¶ 7.3 of the Stipulated Protective Order for Litigation

20

Involving Patents, Highly Sensitive Confidential Information and/or Trade Secrets.

21

Conclusion

22

For these reasons, the court ORDERS that the parties meet and confer, and file a stipulated

23

protective order with the Court consistent with this order no later than August 17, 2011. The court

24

further ORDERS that once the protective order is in place, Defendants immediately shall produce

25

their supplier information in accordance with the protective order. Defendants’ supplier information

26

shall be designated highly confidential, attorneys’ eyes only, and the information shall not be

27

accessible to Plaintiff’s in-house counsel. See Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 04-

28

3

1

5443-TJH, 2005 WL 6411417, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 8, 2005) (not reported in F. Supp. 2d). The

2

supplier information shall not be used for any purpose outside of this litigation.

3

onna M

NO

RT

Dated: August 12, 2011

7

9
10
11
For the Northern District of California

ER

. Ryu

A

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge

8

United States District Court

Judge D

H

6

ERED

R NIA

O ORD
IT IS S

FO

5

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

LI

UNIT
ED

S

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RT
U
O

4

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

4