New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC et al v. Picker et al

Filing 123

ORDER by Judge Vince Chhabria granting 112 Motion for More Definite Statement. (vclc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2016)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS LLC,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 16-cv-02461-VC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION
Re: Dkt. No. 112

MICHAEL PICKER, et al.,
Defendants.

The CPUC has filed an "emergency" motion for clarification of two points relating to the
preliminary injunction issued on May 20, 2016, and the Court's Order enforcing that injunction
issued on August 3, 2016. Dkt. Nos. 65, 104.
First, the CPUC wants to know if the preliminary injunction applies to any data the
CPUC may have gathered outside the context of the investigation that gave rise to this lawsuit.
The answer to that question is obviously no. This lawsuit is a challenge to the ALJ's ruling that
certain data must be disclosed to third parties in connection with a particular investigation. Any
data the CPUC may have gathered elsewhere, and may wish to disclose to third parties outside
the context of this investigation, is not the subject of this lawsuit, and therefore not covered by
the preliminary injunction. However, it bears noting that the CPUC still has its own obligation to
follow the law. The fact that this injunction does not apply to certain conduct should not be
construed as authority to engage in that conduct, if that conduct is otherwise unlawful.
Second, the CPUC wants to know if a postgraduate intern from the Goldman School of
Public Policy, who is paid by an outside organization, can use or access the data. The answer to
that question is also no. The preliminary injunction ruling states that nobody other than a "direct

employee" may access the data. At least on the current record, the postgraduate intern who is
paid by an outside organization cannot be considered a "direct employee." Moreover, prior to
the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court issued a series of written
questions for the parties to consider. See Dkt. No. 60. One of those questions asked the parties
whether it would be acceptable to allow outside consultants under contract with the CPUC to
analyze the data under appropriate confidentiality restrictions. At the hearing, counsel for the
CPUC responded to this question as follows: "we do have our own internal staff that reviews and
analyzes this data. I think just from a practical standpoint the suggestion [to allow the CPUC to
use outside contractors] would probably not be workable for us." Hr'g Tr., Dkt. No. 76, at 9:10–
13. If, as the CPUC's motion for clarification suggests, the answer to the Court's question was
"yes," because in fact the CPUC was already working with outside contractors to analyze the
data, the appropriate time to raise the issue would have been at the hearing on the motion for a
preliminary injunction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 19, 2016
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2