Interserve, Inc. et al v. Fusion Garage PTE. LTD

Filing 142

RESPONSE to re 122 Notice (Other) re Defendant's Further Challenges to Designations by CrunchPad, Inc., Interserve, Inc.. (Scherb, Matthew) (Filed on 5/21/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5802

Andrew P. Bridges (SBN: 122761) [e-mail] David S. Bloch (SBN: 184530) [e-mail] Matthew A. Scherb (SBN: 237461) [e-mail] WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiffs INTERSERVE, INC., dba TECHCRUNCH and CRUNCHPAD, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
PLAINTIFFS' RESP. TO DEF'S. FURTHER CHALLENGES TO PLS.' DESIGNATIONS Case No. 09-CV-5812 RS (PVT)

Winston & Strawn LLP

INTERSERVE, INC., dba TECHCRUNCH, ) a Delaware corporation, and CRUNCHPAD, ) INC., a Delaware corporation, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD., a Singapore ) company, ) ) Defendant. ) ) )

Case No. CV-09-5812 RS (PVT) PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT FUSION GARAGE'S FURTHER CHALLENGES TO PLAINTIFFS' DESIGNATIONS OF PORTIONS OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF MICHAEL ARRINGTON'S DEPOSITION Judge: Hon. Patricia V. Trumbull

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5802

On May 6, 2010, Plaintiffs provided Defendant with narrowly tailored confidentiality designations for the April 20, 2010 deposition transcript of Michael Arrington. This Court's April 30, 2010 order (Dkt. 88) invited Defendant to "advise whether it has further challenges" to any of Plaintiffs' confidentiality designations by May 14, 2010. The order gave Plaintiffs until May 21, 2010 to file a response. Defendant filed further challenges with the Court on May 12, 2010 and Plaintiffs now respond. Defendant argues that the pages 261:18 to 276:6, 373:10 to 375:5, and 388:18 to 390:12 as well as Exhibits 9-10 of the Michael Arrington deposition transcript should have no confidentiality designation under the parties' stipulated protective order. Plaintiffs designated these materials as "CONFIDENTIAL" because they concern a personnel matter between Plaintiffs and an independent contractor. Plaintiffs only seek to protect the independent contractor's privacy. This is a valid basis not only for designating materials as confidential, but even for asking the Court to seal them. E.g., Wesley v. Gates, No. 08-2719, 2009 WL 2380097, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2009) (Illston, J.); Ruffin v. Director Nevada Dept. of Corrections, No. 07-00721, 2009 WL 1294423, at *4 (D. Nev. May 4, 2009); Arigbon v. Multnomah County, 09-311, 2009 WL 3335064, at *3 (D.Or. Oct. 15, 2009); Tumbling v. Merced Irr. Dist., 262 F.R.D. 509, 513 (E.D. Cal. 2009). The case Defendant cites, Fraihat v. Cohen, No. 06-1452, 2007 WL 3333117, *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2007), concerns only withholding or producing documents, not designation under a protective order. Id. (noting that "confidentiality objections are insufficient to justify the withholding of relevant evidence" and that plaintiff sought no confidentiality protections under Rule 26) (emphasis added). Contrary to Defendant's assertion, Plaintiffs do not seek a confidentiality designation based on embarrassment. Plaintiffs, if they could put the independent contractor's privacy aside, would prefer all information about the matter to be public. The matter confirms Defendant's wrongdoing and Plaintiffs' commitment to the parties' joint venture. Plaintiffs oppose de-designation, especially where, as here, Defendant makes the de-designation request in the abstract and without tethering the

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Winston & Strawn LLP

-1PLAINTIFFS' RESP. TO DEF'S. FURTHER CHALLENGES TO PLS.' DESIGNATIONS Case No. 09-CV-5812 RS (PVT)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5802

request to the use of documents for any purpose in substantive court filings.1 For these reasons, the court should allow Plaintiffs' May 6, 2010 designations to stand.

Dated: May 21, 2010

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

By:

/ s/ Andrew P. Bridges David S. Bloch Matthew A. Scherb Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SF:282663.1

Winston & Strawn LLP

At a hearing last Thursday, Judge Seeborg asked the parties to reevaluate whether a number of materials lodged under seal in connection with recent preliminary injunction motion and motion to dismiss, including the materials at issue here, should remain under seal. This reevaluation is ongoing and separate from the issue now before the Court.
-2PLAINTIFFS' RESP. TO DEF'S. FURTHER CHALLENGES TO PLS.' DESIGNATIONS Case No. 09-CV-5812 RS (PVT)

1