Scramoge Technology Limited v. Apple Inc.

Filing 131

ORDER RE: APPLES MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on September 16, 2022. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2022)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,
Plaintiff,

8

Re: Dkt. No. 124

APPLE, INC.,
Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER RE: APPLE’S MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.

9
10

Case No. 22-cv-03041-JSC

12
Apple has moved for summary judgment on Scramoge’s patent infringement claims on the

13
14

grounds that it has a license to the patents. (Dkt. No. 126.) Now pending before the Court is a

15

joint discovery letter regarding Apple’s insistence that the license agreements be shown in

16

unredacted form only to Scramoge’s outside counsel, and that Scramoge’s designated

17

representatives only be allowed to review particular paragraphs Apple deems relevant. (Dkt. No.

18

124.)

19

Upon a showing of “good cause,” a court may “protect a party or person from annoyance,

20

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” in discovery by “requiring that trade

21

secret or other confidential . . . commercial information not be revealed, or be revealed only in a

22

specified way.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Apple, as the party seeking the protective order, has the

23

burden of showing that the protection is warranted. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors

24

Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002). Generally, good cause requires the moving party to

25

show that specific prejudice or harm will result if the protective order is not issued. Id. “Broad

26

allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy

27

the Rule 26(c) test.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992)

28

(cleaned up).

Apple has shown that it would suffer harm if the license agreements were made public;

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1
2

indeed, it goes to great lengths to keep them confidential. (Dkt. No. 124-1.) What it has not

3

shown is that it would suffer harm if Scramoge’s three designated representatives—all licensed

4

attorneys—are able to discuss with their outside counsel the entirety of the license agreements

5

upon which Apple’s motion for summary judgment is based. Other than the amount of

6

consideration, Apple does not provide an explanation as to how Scramoge could use the license

7

agreement information to Apple’s disadvantage. Accordingly, while Scramoge’s outside counsel

8

may not provide a copy of the license agreements to the three identified client representatives,

9

counsel may discuss and orally disclose all of their terms (except the amount of consideration)

10

with the Scramoge representatives, assuming the representatives sign an appropriate protective

11

order.

12

This Order disposes of Docket No. 124.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: September 16, 2022

15
16
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States District Judge

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