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)

Download PDF
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

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?