Cascades Computer Innovation LLC v. RPX Corporation et al

Filing 151

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 138 Motion for Protective Order without prejudice.(dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 CASCADES COMPUTER INNOVATION LLC, 12 Plaintiff(s), 13 No. C-12-01143-YGR (DMR) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [DOCKET NO. 138] WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. 14 RPX CORPORATION ET AL, 15 16 Defendant(s). ___________________________________/ 17 Before the court is a joint motion for a protective order filed by Defendants RPX 18 Corporation, HTC Corporation, and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. [Docket No. 138.] The court 19 has reviewed the motion, and determines that it is premature. “The court may, for good cause, issue 20 an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden 21 or expense,” including by limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters. Fed. R. 22 Civ. P. 26(c)(1). However, “[a] party asserting good cause [for a protective order] bears the burden, 23 for each particular document it seeks to protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm will 24 result if no protective order is granted.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 25 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted, emphasis added). Furthermore, a party asserting the joint 26 defense privilege to prevent discovery of a communication bears the burden of showing that “(1) the 27 communication is made by separate parties in the course of a matter of common [legal] interest; (2) 28 1 the communication is designed to further that effort; and (3) the privilege has not been waived.” 2 Nidec Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan, 249 F.R.D. 575, 578 (N.D. Cal. 2007). The court cannot apply 3 this fact-specific analysis here, where no discovery has been conducted and the case is stayed (with 4 no discovery permitted) until at least December 12, 2014. See Docket Nos. 133, 137, 150. 5 Accordingly, the motion for protective order is denied without prejudice. 6 S 12 R NIA . Ryu onna M DONNAe DRYU Judg M. RT United States Magistrate Judge ER 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 A H For the Northern District of California 11 Dated: October 1, 2014 NO United States District Court 10 DERED O OR IT IS S FO 9 LI IT IS SO ORDERED. UNIT ED 8 RT U O 7 S DISTRICT TE C TA N F D IS T IC T O R C

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?