Language Line Services, Inc. v. Language Services Associates, LLC et al

Filing 136

ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S 131 OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL MASTER'S DISCOVERY ORDER NO. 5; DENYING 135 MOTION Application for Order Scheduling Hearing Regarding LSA's Objection to the Special Master's Discovery Order No. 5. Signed by Judge James Ware on March 15, 2011. (jwlc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2011) Modified text on 3/15/2011 (ecg, COURT STAFF).

Language Line Services, Inc. v. Language Services Associates, LLC et al

Doc. 136

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Language Line Services, Inc., Plaintiff, v.
For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 10-02605 JW ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL MASTER'S DISCOVERY ORDER NO. 5

United States District Court

11 12

Language Services Assoc., LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Accordingly, the Court DENIES as moot Defendant LSA's Motion for an Order Scheduling a Hearing for Defendant LSA's Objections. (Docket Item No. 135.) As the Court has previously stated, there is no requirement to grant Defendant "a hearing" on its objections, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(f) merely speaks to "giv[ing] the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard." Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(1). (See Docket Item Nos. 104, 116.) Here, Defendant LSA has filed an extensive brief for the Court's consideration. (Docket Item No. 131.) Thus, the Court has afforded Defendant LSA with an opportunity to make its case.
1

/ Presently before the Court is Language Services Associates, Inc.'s ("Defendant LSA") Objections to Special Master's February 24, 2011 Discovery Order Number 5. (hereafter, "Objections," Docket Item No. 131.) The Court finds it appropriate to take the matter under submission without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).1 On February 24, 2011, the Special Master issued Discovery Order No. 5, in which he granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's request for a determination that Defendant LSA cannot communicate with Jackson Memorial Hospital ("Jackson") and Rush University Medical Center ("Rush"). (hereafter, "DO 5," Docket Item No. 127.) In Discovery Order No. 5, the Special Master determined that (1) Defendant LSA may continue to service Rush and may increase its services to

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Rush at Rush's request but may not solicit further business from Rush, and (2) Defendant LSA may not provide services to Jackson. (DO 5 at 1-2.) In so ruling, the Special master specifically determined that Rush was a "customer" with whom Defendant LSA had an existing contractual relationship while Jackson was not. (DO 5 at 3-4.) The Court reconsiders a recommendation of the Special Master pertaining to a nondispositive motion or pretrial discovery matter only where the Special Master's recommendation is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. (See Order of Appointment, Docket Item Nol. 51 at 2.) Here, the Court finds that the Special Master's recommendation is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Court's Injunction prevents Defendant from: Contacting, communicating, soliciting, dealing, or doing business with any of the customers or their representatives appearing on the Brian List, the September 2009 Report or any other document or records containing any of Plaintiff's Trade Secrets, except where Defendant LSA has an existing contractual relationship with such a customer that was not obtained using any of Plaintiff's Trade Secrets, and only to the extent necessary for Defendant LSA to satisfy its currently existing contractual obligations to that customer. (Docket Item No. 50 at 10-11.) The Special Master specifically found that, notwithstanding the

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14

group purchasing organization agreement (GPO), Jackson was not a "customer" with whom 15 Defendant LSA had an existing contractual relationship. (DO 5 at 3-4.) Specifically, the Special 16 Master required a showing that Defendant LSA "had a `letter of designation/commitment' with any 17 member of the GPO whose name is included on [P]laintiff's Trade Secret list, which agreement 18 predates the Injunction" before it could be established that a GPO member was a customer with 19 whom Defendant LSA had an existing contractual relationship. (DO 5 at 5.) Finally, the Special 20 Master determined that there were procedures set out in the GPO agreement that allowed Defendant 21 LSA to opt out of providing services to GPO members without being subject to cancellation of the 22 GPO agreement. (DO 5 at 4.) Upon review, the Court finds that none of these factual findings by 23 the Special Master are clearly erroneous. 24 25 26 27 28 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Defendant's Objection to Special Master Discovery Order No. 5.

Dated: March 15, 2011 JAMES WARE United States District Chief Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Cheryl Stephanie Chang [e-mail] Christopher Joseph Marino [e-mail] Danielle Ochs-Tillotson [e-mail] Mark J. Nagle [e-mail] Paul D. Murphy [e-mail] Robert L. Meylan [e-mail] Sarah Rebecca Nichols [e-mail] Steven Marc Weinberg [e-mail] Thomas H R Denver [e-mail] Dated: March 15, 2011 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy

8 9 10

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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