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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?