BladeRoom Group Limited et al v. Facebook, Inc.

Filing 225

(REDACTED) ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 180 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 8. (hrllc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2017)

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

v.
FACEBOOK, INC., et al.,

Case No.5:15-cv-01370-EJD (HRL)
**REDACTED**
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
REPORT NO. 8
Re: Dkt. No. 180

Defendants.

17

In Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) #8 defendants Emerson Electric Co., Emerson

18

Network Power Solutions, Inc., and Liebert Corporation (collectively, the “Emerson defendants”)

19

seek an order compelling plaintiffs to provide further detail about their allegedly misappropriated

20

trade secrets (Interrogatory #1) and also to separately identify any claimed misconduct by each of

21

the Emerson defendants instead of lumping them together collectively (Interrogatories #1-11).

22

Plaintiffs oppose both requests.
Interrogatory #1

23
24
25
26

Interrogatory #1 says: “Identify all trade secrets you allege that you disclosed to [each of
the Emerson defendants].”
The Emerson defendants say that plaintiffs simply have not revealed enough about their

27

claimed trade secrets to enable them to know what they are defending against. Nonsense, say

28

plaintiffs. We disclosed them either in our Disclosure of Plaintiffs’ Trade Secrets under California

1

Code of Civil Procedure § 2019.210 (“Disclosures”) or in various documents we identified in our

2

response to Interrogatory #1. In rejoinder, the Emerson defendants contend, in effect, that the

3

Disclosures are long on generalities and short on specifics.

4

Plaintiffs’ first argument is that, if the Emerson defendants wanted more specificity in the

5

Disclosures, they should have moved for an order to supplement them. Since they have not done

6

so, they have “waived” (plaintiffs’ word) the contention that the disclosure is inadequate.

7

Plaintiffs cite no authority for this rather curious proposition, and the court sees nothing wrong

8

with using discovery (Interrogatory #1) to get more specificity. Indeed, discovery was exactly the

9

right way to go about probing the facts and, perhaps, exposing the weaknesses of an opposing

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

party’s claims. The court rejects plaintiffs’ argument.
Equally troubling is the plaintiffs’ assertion that Interrogatory #1 only asked that their trade

12

secrets be “identif[ied],” and that they had already done that in their Disclosures. Plaintiffs say

13

that if the Emerson defendants had wanted something more than the identity of the trade secrets,

14

they should have propounded an interrogatory that pointedly asked for specifics, and plaintiffs

15

would have been happy to comply. Here, plaintiffs are exalting form over substance. Obviously,

16

defendants wanted specifics, or why bother to propound the interrogatory at all? Furthermore, the

17

Disclosures did not, in this court’s view, for the most part adequately “identify” the trade secrets

18

with the “reasonable particularity” that Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2019.210 requires. And, since

19

plaintiffs tell the court that they would have fleshed out their Disclosures if the Emerson

20

defendants had only asked the right question, they should have no problem doing that now that the

21

court has clarified the question for them.

22
23
24

REDACTED

25
26
27
28
2

1
2
3
REDACTED

4
5
6
7
8
9

In short, the court is persuaded that plaintiffs owe the Emerson defendants a supplemental

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

response to Interrogatory #1 that addresses all the claimed trade secrets as to the shortcomings the

12

court has described by example above.

13

Interrogatories #1-11

14

The Emerson defendants are three separate, presumably related, entities. In Interrogatories

15

#1-11 each asked plaintiffs to state (individually), which entity received what secret, which entity

16

misappropriated what secret, which caused damages, and so on. Plaintiffs responded by providing

17

identical answers for each entity and made no attempt to separate out who did what. Plaintiffs

18

explained they would need further discovery to figure that out and offered to supplement their

19

responses later. That was months ago. “Later” is now. Plaintiffs shall now respond separately

20

and particularly to each of the three Emerson defendants.
Conclusion

21
22
23

Plaintiffs will submit supplemental interrogatory responses within 14 days from the filing
of this order.

24

SO ORDERED.

25

Dated: March 13, 2017

26
27
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

28
3