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)

Download PDF
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,,,, Heidi Lyn Keefe, 7 James Alexander Reese 8 9 10 Jeffrey M. Fisher,,, Julia Frederika Kropp,, United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Kristine Anne Forderer Mark Frederick Lambert,,, 14 Mark R. Weinstein 15 Matthew David Caplan 16 Melinda Mae Morton,, 17,, 18 Michael Graham Rhodes 19 Robert H. Sloss,, 20 21 Robert Thomas Cahill , Jr 22 Stephanie Powers Skaff,,,, 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?