In re: Application of Russell Knaggs v. Yahoo! Inc.

Filing 47

ORDER RE: CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS. The Clerk of Court shall close the file in this matter. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 3/19/2018. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RUSSELL KNAGGS,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

ORDER RE: CONFIDENTIALITY
DESIGNATIONS
Re: Dkt. No. 42

10

YAHOO! INC.,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 15-mc-80281-MEJ

12
13

Although Petitioner Russell Knaggs concedes this matter should be closed, he requests the

14

Court order the release of the unredacted Narayan Dash deposition transcript to Petitioner and his

15

United Kingdom counsel working on his appeal. Feb. 1, 2018 Status Report at 3, Dkt. No. 42.

16

Respondent Yahoo! Inc.1 opposes this request, arguing it would reveal information Yahoo

17

designated as confidential to persons who are not subject to a protective order similar to the one

18

entered in this litigation. Id. at 6-7; see Protective Order, Dkt. No. 29.
At this point, releasing the transcript is premature. A hearing on Petitioner’s U.K. appeal

19
20

took place in December 2017, and Petitioner is awaiting a decision. Pet. Suppl. Br. at 2, Dkt. No.

21

44; id. at ECF pp. 7-8 (“Colorado Decl.”) ¶ 5. Petitioner represents he “is entitled to appeal an

22

adverse decision to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.” Id. (both). Petitioner further

23

states the Dash deposition transcript would contain information “relevant to any request for

24

clarification or for further briefing that may be requested by the appellate court before rendering

25

judgment.” Pet. Suppl. Br. at 3; Colorado Decl. ¶ 6.
Either scenario is nothing more than a mere possibility. First, Petitioner does not represent

26
27
28

1

Now known as Oath Holdings.

1

that he intends to appeal an adverse decision to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, only

2

that he is entitled to an appeal. Even if there is an appeal or request for supplemental briefing,

3

Petitioner does not know at this juncture whether he will need to “prove up the sufficient

4

foundation of the expert report” which was at issue during the appeal and is the reason for

5

Petitioner’s alleged need for the confidential information. Pet. Suppl. Br. at 3. Second, Petitioner

6

does not explain why he believes the U.K. appellate court may request additional briefing; nor

7

does he assert that that court would accept new evidence at that time. In short, Petitioner fails to

8

show that further litigation is “within reasonable contemplation.” Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro

9

Devises, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 259 (2004).
In light of these uncertainties and given that Petitioner and his U.K. counsel are not bound

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

by any protective order, the Court declines to release the Dash deposition transcript to Petitioner

12

and his U.K. counsel at this time.2 Nothing in this Order prohibits Petitioner from raising this

13

issue in a subsequent action if (1) the appellate court requests additional briefing, or Petitioner

14

appeals to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom; (2) Petitioner can demonstrate the

15

confidential portions of the transcript are relevant to those proceedings; and (3) Petitioner and his

16

U.K. counsel will agree to be bound by the terms of a protective order.

17

The Clerk of Court shall close the file in this matter.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: March 19, 2018
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Petitioner argues “[i]t beggars belief to imagine that the Court could order discovery in support
of a foreign proceeding but not intend that the information produced would be made available to
the Petitioner in that proceeding nor to his attorneys assisting him in that proceeding.” Pet. Suppl.
Br. at 5. To the extent Petitioner believed the redacted portions of the Dash transcript would aid
him during his appeal, he did not move the Court to release them prior to the December 2017
hearing. See Docket. It was only after the Court ordered the parties to file a joint status report that
Petitioner raised the issue – more than one month after the hearing took place. See Jan. 18, 2018
Status Order, Dkt. No. 40; Joint Status Report.
2