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)

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