BladeRoom Group Limited et al v. Facebook, Inc.

Filing 201

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 176 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 6. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

BLADEROOM GROUP LIMITED, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17

Case No.5:15-cv-01370-EJD (HRL)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT NO. 6

v.
FACEBOOK, INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 176

Defendants.
In this action, plaintiffs seek damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets. In

18

DDJR #6, plaintiffs seek an order requiring the Emerson defendants to answer Interrogatory No.

19

11: “Identify any trade secret listed in BRG’s Disclosure of Trade Secrets Under California Code

20

of Civil procedure §2019.210 [“§ 2019.210 statement”] that you contend was known or used in the

21

public before BRG disclosed that trade secret to you, and identify all facts, documents, and

22

witnesses that support or contradict your contention.” (Dkt. 175-3 at 2).

23

The Emerson defendants objected to answering No. 11 on the grounds that (1) it was

24

premature because the presiding judge had not yet ruled on their motion to dismiss the

25

misappropriation claim for relief, and (2) the plaintiffs’ § 2019.210 statement merely generally

26

describes the features of any data center and omits detailed specifications and descriptions that

27

would make their features unique.

28

Since DDJR #6 was filed, the presiding judge did rule on the Emerson defendants’ motion

1

to dismiss. He denied it. That ruling shoots down the first objection.

2

As for the second objection, it does seem to this court that plaintiffs describe their claimed

3

trade secrets in their § 2019.210 statement with quite a broad brush. However, the normal remedy

4

for that, if a remedy is needed, is a motion to require plaintiffs to submit more particularized

5

disclosures. None of the defendants have filed such a motion.

6

Close of discovery is not far off, and it is time for the Emerson defendants to answer, as

7

best they can, Interrogatory No. 11. Of course, they can supplement their answer later as

8

additional information becomes known. Their answer is due 10 days after this order is filed.

9
10

SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 27, 2017

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1

5:15-cv-01370-EJD Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Anthony David Giles

3

Elizabeth Lee Stameshkin

4

Erik Christopher Olson

5

Eugene Y. Mar

6

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Heidi Lyn Keefe

[e-mail], [e-mail]

7
James Alexander Reese

[e-mail]

8
9
10

Jeffrey M. Fisher [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Julia Frederika Kropp

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Kristine Anne Forderer
Mark Frederick Lambert

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

14

Mark R. Weinstein

15

Matthew David Caplan

16

Melinda Mae Morton [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

17

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

18

Michael Graham Rhodes

19

Robert H. Sloss [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

20
21

Robert Thomas Cahill , Jr

22

Stephanie Powers Skaff

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

23
24
25
26
27
28
3