Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) PTE. Ltd. v. IPtronics Inc. et al
Filing
349
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO DE-DESIGNATE AND MODIFY THE PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting in part and denying in part 221 Motion for de-designation of product samples and modification of protective order (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
13
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES FIBER IP
(SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
14
15
16
17
IPTRONICS, INC. and IPTRONICS A/S,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: C 10-CV-02863 EJD (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
MOTION TO DE-DESIGNATE AND
MODIFY THE PROTECTIVE ORDER
(Re: Docket No. 221)
On April 6, 2012, Plaintiff Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (“Avago”)
18
filed an administrative motion to de-designate certain product samples marked highly confidential
19
by Defendant IPtronics, Inc. and IPtronics A/S (“IPtronics”) and to modify the court’s protective
20
order. IPtronics opposes the motion.
21
IPtronics argues that Avago improperly filed an administrative motion to resolve a
22
substantive dispute. IPtronics is right. Civil Local Rule 7-11 is reserved for “miscellaneous
23
administrative matters, not otherwise governed by a federal statute, Federal or local rule or
24
25
26
standing order of the assigned judge,” including but not limited to “motions to exceed otherwise
applicable page limitations or motions to file documents under seal.” A motion for administrative
relief “is not the appropriate vehicle for resolution of the substantive arguments raised by the
27
28
1
Case No.: C 10-02863 EJD (PSG)
ORDER
1
parties.”1 As IPtronics correctly noted, the de-designation of product samples and modification of
2
the parties’ stipulated protective order are substantive issues. These issues are not suitable for
3
filing under the shortened time and briefing requirements of Civil Local Rule 7-11.2
4
Despite Avago's procedural violation, in light of its own delay in resolving this dispute and
5
its understanding of the parties' arguments, the court will proceed to consider the merits of the
6
dispute.
The parties’ dispute centers around what Avago views as overly broad restrictions on
7
8
discovery. Avago first seeks modification of the prosecution bar in the protective order,
9
complaining the language is overbroad. However, Avago wrongly suggests that it had no role in
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
urging this language upon the court. In fact, the parties negotiated at length before they jointly
11
submitted the language of the stipulated protective order to the court.3 If Avago is unhappy with
12
the consequences of the language it agreed upon, those consequences are of its own making, and
13
there is no reason to alter it at this late stage.
Regarding IPtronics’ designation of certain products as “Highly Confidential – Attorney’s
14
15
Eyes Only,” the court agrees that this higher level of confidentiality is unwarranted. The
16
designating party bears the burden of showing its designation is correct.4 Under the stipulated
17
protective order, the standard for “Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only” is “extremely
18
sensitive” information, “disclosure of which… would create a substantial risk of serious harm that
19
could not be avoided by less restrictive means.”5 The standard dictates that the information cannot
20
be disclosed to the receiving party itself, but only to the receiving party’s outside counsel and other
21
22
23
1
Hess v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P., Case No. 06-0572 PJH, 2006 WL 2092068, at *1
(N.D. Cal. July 26, 2006).
2
24
See Civ. L.R. 7-11 (limiting motions and oppositions to five pages each and requiring oppositions
to be filed no later than four days after the filing of the motion).
25
3
26
4
27
See Docket No. 77; See also Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th
Cir. 2003).
5
28
See Docket No. 77; Docket No. 227 ¶ 4.
See Docket No. 77.
2
Case No.: C 10-02863 EJD (PSG)
ORDER
1
select individuals who agree to be bound by the prosecution bar.6 Avago has shown that IPtronics
2
has distributed the products at issue only under the label of “Confidential,” or “treated and
3
maintained as confidential by the receiving party.”7 IPtronics relied on this lower, not higher, level
4
of confidentiality in distributing the products to a third-party (but Avago-related) entity, Avago
5
Technologies U.S., Inc.8 IPtronics cannot now claim that the lower level of confidentiality is
6
insufficient to protect their products when they have previously distributed products to customers
7
under only that level of confidentiality. If the lower level of confidentiality was sufficient outside
8
of this litigation, it will be sufficient inside of it.
Avago’s motion to modify the protective order is DENIED. Avago’s motion to re-
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
designate certain samples under the lower standard of “Confidential” is GRANTED.
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
Dated: January 2, 2013
13
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
See Docket No. 77.
7
See Docket No. 222 ¶¶ 10-11, Ex. G.
8
See Docket No. 226 ¶ 8.
26
27
28
3
Case No.: C 10-02863 EJD (PSG)
ORDER
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?