Pinterest, Inc. v. Pintrips, Inc.

Filing 89

Order by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore regarding 72 Discovery Letter Brief.(kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PINTEREST, INC.,

Case No. 13-cv-04608-RS (KAW)

Plaintiff,

8

v.

9

PINTRIPS, INC.,

10

Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER
Re: Dkt. No. 72

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

The parties in the above-captioned case filed a joint discovery letter in which they dispute

14

whether Anthony Falzone may be nominated as "Designated House Counsel" under the stipulated

15

protective order entered in this case.

16

To resolve this dispute, the Court must balance the risk of inadvertent disclosure of trade

17

secrets to competitors against the risk that the protection of such information will impair a

18

plaintiff's ability to prosecute its case. Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465,

19

1470 (9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, "the factual circumstances surrounding each individual

20

counsel's activities, association, and relationship with a party, whether counsel be in-house or

21

retained, must govern any concern for inadvertent or accidental disclosure." U.S. Steel Corp. v.

22

United States, 730 F.2d 1465, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also Brown Bag Software, 960 F.2d at

23

1470 ("Thus, proper review of protective orders in cases such as this requires the district court to

24

examine factually all the risks and safeguards surrounding inadvertent disclosure by any counsel,

25

whether in-house or retained.") (emphasis in original).

26

In order to properly determine Mr. Falzone's role at Pinterest, the Court requires more than

27

Plaintiff's counsel's representation that Mr. Falzone is engaged in a variety of tasks that do not

28

constitute competitive decision-making. Accordingly, the Court orders Mr. Falzone to prepare a

1

declaration, under penalty of perjury, that details his duties and responsibilities in sufficient detail

2

so that the parties, and if necessary, the Court, are able to determine whether any of his work

3

constitutes competitive decision-making. Mr. Falzone shall exchange this declaration with

4

Defendant, and the parties shall meet and confer to discuss whether Mr. Falzone's duties and

5

responsibilities, as described in his declaration, constitute competitive decision-making. If the

6

parties are unable to reach a resolution, they may file, together with Mr. Falzone's declaration, an

7

updated joint letter on the issue. Upon receipt of any updated joint letter, the Court will determine

8

whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary to fully evaluate whether Mr. Falzone engages in any

9

competitive decision-making.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dated:

09/15/2014

______________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2