BladeRoom Group Limited et al v. Facebook, Inc.

Filing 256

Amended Letter of Request re Steve Lobley. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 4/17/2017. (hrllc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

COOLEY LLP
MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127) ([e-mail])
MATTHEW D. CAPLAN (260388) ([e-mail])
KRISTINE A. FORDERER (278745) ([e-mail])
101 California Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
COOLEY LLP
HEIDI L. KEEFE (178960) ([e-mail])
MARK F. LAMBERT (197410) ([e-mail])
3175 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
FACEBOOK, INC.

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN JOSE DIVISION

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

BLADEROOM GROUP LIMITED, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-01370 EJD

Plaintiffs,

PROPOSED AMENDED LETTER OF
REQUEST FOR STEVE LOBLEY

v.
FACEBOOK, INC., EMERSON ELECTRIC
CO., EMERSON NETWORK POWER
SOLUTIONS, INC. and LIEBERT
CORPORATION,
Defendants.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

1.

PROPOSED AMENDED LETTER OF REQUEST
FOR STEVE LOBLEY
CASE NO. 15-CV-01370 EJD

1
2

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE
HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE ABROAD
IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS CONCLUDED 18 MARCH 1970

3

To:

4
5
6

Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division
For the attention of the Foreign Process Section
Room 16
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, England WC2A 2LL

7

From: Howard R. Lloyd, United States Magistrate Judge
United States District Court for the Northern District of California

8

Re:

9
10

I.

Request for Judicial Assistance Pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Taking
of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters Concluded 18 March 1970

Information provided pursuant to Convention Article 3(a).

11

A.

12

In conformity with Article 3 of the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad

13

in Civil or Commercial Matters, concluded 18 March 1970 (the “Convention”), the United States

14

District Court for the Northern District of California (United States District Judge Edward J.

15

Davila and United States Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd presiding), respectfully requests the

16

assistance of your honorable court with regard to the matters set forth below.

Requesting Court.

17

The Court considers that the evidence sought is directly relevant to the issues in dispute

18

and is not pre-trial discovery within the meaning of Article 23 of the Hague Evidence

19

Convention, that is, discovery intended to lead to relevant evidence for trial. The evidence sought

20

is to be used—and would be admissible—in the trial in California.

21

B.

22

The full title of the action in which international judicial assistance is requested is:

23

Bladeroom Group Limited and Bripco (UK) Limited v. Facebook, Inc., Emerson Electric

24
25
26

Full title of action.

Co., Emerson Network Power Solutions, Inc., and Liebert Corporation.
The case number of the action in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California is 15-cv-1370-EJD.

27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

2.

PROPOSED AMENDED LETTER OF REQUEST
FOR STEVE LOBLEY
CASE NO. 15-CV-01370 EJD

1

II.

Information provided pursuant to Convention Article 3(b).

2

A.

3

The plaintiffs in this action are Bladeroom Group Limited (“BRG”) and Bripco (UK)

4

Limited (“Bripco”) (together, “Plaintiffs”). BRG is a privately held company organized under the

5

laws of England with a registered office at Stella Way, Bishop’s Cleeve, Cheltenham,

6

Gloucestershire GL52 7DQ. Bripco is a privately held company organized under the laws of

7

England with a registered office at Stella Way, Bishop’s Cleeve, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire

8

GL52 7DQ.

9
10

Names of the parties to the action.

Plaintiffs are represented in this action by the law firm Farella Braun + Martel LLP, 235
Montgomery Street, 17th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94104.

11

The defendants in this action are Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”), Emerson Electric Co.

12

(“Emerson”), Emerson Network Power Solutions, Inc. (“ENPS”), and Liebert Corporation

13

(“Liebert”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Facebook is a publicly traded company organized under

14

the laws of Delaware with a principal place of business at 1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park,

15

California 94025. Emerson is a privately held company organized under the laws of Missouri

16

with a principal place of business at 8000 West Florissant Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri, 63136.

17

ENPS is a privately held company organized under the laws of Delaware with a principal place of

18

business at 1050 Dearborn Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43085. Liebert is a privately held company

19

organized under the laws of Ohio with a principal place of business at 1050 Dearborn Drive,

20

Columbus, Ohio 43085.

21
22

Facebook is represented in this action by the law firm Cooley LLP, 101 California Street,
5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111-5800.

23

Emerson, ENPS and Liebert (collectively, “Emerson Defendants”) are represented in this

24

action by the law firm Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP, 1117 S. California Ave., Suite

25

200, Palo Alto, CA 94304.

26

III.

27

Information provided pursuant to Convention Article 3(c).
Plaintiffs make the following allegations in their Second Amended Complaint

28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

3.

PROPOSED AMENDED LETTER OF REQUEST
FOR STEVE LOBLEY
CASE NO. 15-CV-01370 EJD

1

(“Complaint” or “Compl.”), the operative pleading in this action.1 Defendants deny they have

2

engaged in any wrongful conduct with respect to Plaintiffs.

3

Facebook provides online services that allow users to stay connected with friends and

4

family, to discover what’s going on in the world and to share and express what matters to them.

5

Among other things, users can use the Facebook platform to upload photos and videos, and share

6

comments and other content. Facebook stores this data in multiple data centers containing

7

thousands of servers globally, including data centers in Prineville, Oregon (U.S.) and Luleå,

8

Sweden. Compl., ¶¶ 2, 33, 50. Data centers are specialized buildings engineered to securely

9

house servers, which have particular climate requirements in order to run without overheating.

10

Id., ¶¶ 22-23.

11

Plaintiff BRG constructs and sells data centers it calls “BladeRooms”. Id., ¶ 4. Plaintiff

12

Bripco owns the alleged intellectual property associated with BRG’s methodology for

13

constructing data centers and licenses it to BRG. Id., ¶ 5. Plaintiffs call this methodology the

14

“BRG Methodology.” Id., ¶¶ 4-5. Various aspects of the BRG Methodology are subject to

15

patents, some aspects are publicly known, and other aspects are allegedly kept confidential or as

16

trade secrets. Id., ¶ 4.

17

The BRG Methodology uses “modular” construction techniques. Id., ¶ 22. Modular

18

construction involves manufacturing some or all components of a building off-site and

19

transporting it to the desired location, as opposed to traditional “stick built” construction methods

20

in which materials are assembled and the structure is erected on site. Id., ¶¶ 22-24. Plaintiffs’

21

alleged trade secrets and confidential information (collectively, the “BRG Alleged Trade

22

Secrets/Confidential Information”) are contained in Exhibit B to the Complaint.2 Id., ¶¶ 28, 29.

23

In October 2011, BRG first contacted Facebook to promote its data centers. Id., ¶ 37.

24
1

25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

Exhibit 1 is a copy of the publicly available version of the Complaint. With Court
approval, the law permits the parties to redact confidential information from publicly filed
pleadings. The publicly filed Complaint redacts information one or more of the parties have
designated as confidential.
2

Plaintiffs filed Exhibit B to the Complaint under seal, with Court approval, and thus
Exhibit B to the Complaint is not publicly available.
4.

PROPOSED AMENDED LETTER OF REQUEST
FOR STEVE LOBLEY
CASE NO. 15-CV-01370 EJD

1

BRG and Facebook subsequently executed a mutual non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”). Id.,

2

¶ 38.

3

In May 2012, BRG’s representatives met with Facebook’s representatives, and the

4

representatives of various data center construction and architecture firms already working with

5

Facebook, at Facebook’s data center campus in Prineville, Oregon. See id., ¶ 56. Plaintiffs allege

6

that during that meeting, BRG disclosed the BRG Alleged Trade Secret/Confidential Information

7

to the meeting attendees. Id., ¶ 57.

8

In June 2012, Facebook’s representatives met with BRG’s representatives (including Mr.

9

Lobley) at BRG’s facilities in Cheltenham, England. See id., ¶¶ 50-51, 60-61. Plaintiffs allege

10

that, at the meeting, BRG disclosed the BRG Alleged Trade Secret/Confidential Information to

11

Facebook. Id. Plaintiffs claim that an e-mail evidences this alleged disclosure. Compl., ¶ 63

12

(referencing email). Mr. Lobley wrote that e-mail.

13

In August 2012, Facebook met with the Emerson Defendants, which had an existing data

14

center business. Id., ¶ 75. In October 2012, Facebook hosted a five-day meeting with modular

15

construction experts for the purpose of designing a modular data center concept for Facebook.

16

Id., ¶ 80. In January 2014, at an industry conference, Facebook presented to the public its

17

modular data center concept, termed the Rapid Deployment Data Center (“RDDC”). Id., ¶ 87.

18

By mid-2014, BRG had submitted several proposals to Facebook for various data center

19

projects, including projects located in Prineville, Oregon and Luleå, Sweden. Id., ¶¶ 3, 49, 57, 69,

20

71, 81.

21

Secrets/Confidential Information. Id. In May 2014, Facebook announced that it had selected

22

Emerson to construct a version of the RDDC on Facebook’s data center campus in Luleå Sweden.

23

On March 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed this civil action against Facebook in the United States

24

District Court for the Northern District of California. On April 18, 2016, Plaintiffs were granted

25

leave to file the Complaint that, among other things, added the Emerson Defendants as

26

defendants. The Complaint asserts the following claims against all Defendants: (1) breach of

27

contract; (2) misappropriation of trade secrets; and (3) unfair competition. Each of Plaintiffs’

28

claims has distinct legal elements.

COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

Plaintiffs allege that these proposals contained the BRG Alleged Trade

5.

PROPOSED AMENDED LETTER OF REQUEST
FOR STEVE LOBLEY
CASE NO. 15-CV-01370 EJD

1

1.

Breach of Contract

2

A breach of contract claim requires Plaintiffs to prove: (1) a contract existed; (2) Plaintiffs

3

have performed or had their performance excused; (3) Defendant breached the contract; and (4)

4

Plaintiffs suffered damages on account of the breach. Plaintiffs allege Facebook breached the

5

NDA by engaging in unauthorized use and disclosure of their confidential information. Compl.,

6

¶ 120.

7

2.

Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

8

A misappropriation of trade secrets claim requires Plaintiffs to prove: (1) the existence of

9

a trade secret; (2) Plaintiffs own the alleged trade secret; (3) Facebook improperly used or

10

disclosed that trade secret; and (4) Plaintiffs suffered harm from the improper use or disclosure.

11

Cal. Civ. Code 3426.1 et seq. Plaintiffs allege “Facebook improperly used Bripco UK’s trade

12

secrets, for example, in its development of the RDCC” and “in the construction of the second

13

phase of its Lulea data center campus.” Compl., ¶¶ 132, 134.

14

3.

Unfair Competition

15

A claim under California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) requires Plaintiffs to prove: (1)

16

Facebook engaged in an (a) unlawful; or (b) unfair; or (c) fraudulent business practice; and

17

(2) Plaintiffs lost money or property as a result. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.

18

Plaintiffs allege Facebook engaged in unlawful and unfair business acts by, for example, using

19

the alleged trade secrets “to develop the RDDC approach,” publicly disclosing Plaintiffs’

20

Confidential Information, and “compet[ing] with BRG as a data center design provider and

21

innovator.” Compl., ¶¶ 151, 153.

22

Additionally, Plaintiffs brought a claim against Facebook for false designation of origin

23

under the Lanham Act. However, the Court has dismissed that claim from the case. See Exhibit

24

2. The Court has also dismissed a sub-set of Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims against the

25

Emerson Defendants, those arising from alleged breach of the covenant of good faith and fair

26

dealing.

27

counterclaims against Plaintiffs.

28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

See Exhibit 3.

Defendants have denied Plaintiffs’ claims but have not filed any

The Court has not set a trial date, but has set a trial setting conference for May 11, 2017.
6.

PROPOSED AMENDED LETTER OF REQUEST
FOR STEVE LOBLEY
CASE NO. 15-CV-01370 EJD

1

See Exhibit 4.

2

IV.

Information provided pursuant to Convention Article 3(d).

3

A.

4

It is necessary for the due determination of the matters in dispute between the parties in

5

the matter pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

6

that you cause the witness listed below, who is resident within your jurisdiction, to be subject to

7

oral examination for use at the trial of this matter.

8
9

Evidence to be obtained.

This letter of request is issued at the request of Defendant Facebook, Inc.
V.

Information provided pursuant to Convention Article 3(e).

10

A.

11

The name and last known address of the witness from whom testimony is sought is listed

12

Name and address of the witness.

below:
Steve Lobley
Spring Business Management
Woodlands Grange, Woodlands Road, Bradley Stoke, Bristol, BS32 4JY

13
14
15

VI.

Information provided pursuant to Convention Article 3(f).

16

A.

17

Between January and September 2012, Mr. Lobley was BRG’s Chief Operating Officer.

18

He attended the June 2012 meeting between Facebook and BRG in England, and authored an

19

email that Plaintiffs claim evidence their disclosure of the BRG Alleged Trade

20

Secrets/Confidential Information. See Compl., ¶ 63 (referencing document). As a result, the

21

Court requests that you cause Mr. Lobley to give testimony on the following subjects:

22

Testimony to be provided by the witness.

1.

His educational background, employment history, professional qualifications,
and personal preparation for the examination.

2.

His knowledge of BRG’s efforts to maintain the secrecy and confidentiality of
the BRG Alleged Trade Secrets/Confidential Information while he was
employed at BRG. 3 Mr. Lobley’s testimony on this subject is relevant to
issues in this civil action, including but not limited to, whether, and, if so, the

23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

3

To qualify for protection as a “trade secret” under applicable law, the information must (1)
derive independent value from not being generally known to the public or other persons who can
obtain economic value from its use or disclosure, and (2) be the subject of reasonable efforts to
maintain its secrecy. Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(d).
7.

PROPOSED AMENDED LETTER OF REQUEST
FOR STEVE LOBLEY
CASE NO. 15-CV-01370 EJD

1

extent to which, BRG had undertaken reasonable efforts to maintain the
secrecy (if any) of the BRG Alleged Trade Secret/Confidential Information
such that it could qualify for protection as trade secret(s) or confidential
information, under applicable law.

2
3

3.

BRG’s sales, pricing, and marketing of BRG’s data centers. Mr. Lobley’s
testimony on this subject is relevant to issues in this civil action, including but
not limited to, whether Plaintiffs incurred any damages and the amount of any
alleged damages.

4.

Meetings between Facebook and BRG which Mr. Lobley personally attended,
including the June 19-21, 2012 meetings in the UK.

5.

4

Mr. Lobley’s communications with Facebook, including the email referenced
in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint.

5
6
7
8
9

In the course of the examination of Mr. Lobley, Facebook intends to put documents to Mr.

10

Lobley, all of which relate to the subject matters set forth in Section VI of this letter of request. If

11

so ordered by the Court, Facebook will prepare a selection of such documents for Mr. Lobley to

12

review prior to his examination.

13

VII.

Information provided pursuant to Convention Article 3(h).

14

A.

15

The witness should be examined under oath. I respectfully request that you: cause the

16

evidence of the witness to be reduced into writing; cause all documents produced on such

17

examinations to be duly marked for identification; and cause copies of the documents to be made.

18

I further request that you authenticate such examinations by the seal of your Court in such way as

19

is in accordance with your procedure, and return the written evidence and documents produced to

20

me at the following address:

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

Form of the examination.

Howard R. Lloyd, United States Magistrate Judge
Robert F. Peckham Federal Building
280 S 1st Street
San Jose, California 95113
VIII. Information provided pursuant to Convention Article 3(i).
A.

Procedure.

The testimony should be given before an examiner of the court. The witness should give
an oath or affirmation before testifying; the testimony should be transcribed by a stenographer;
and the testimony should be recorded on video by a videographer. In addition, I request that the
8.

PROPOSED AMENDED LETTER OF REQUEST
FOR STEVE LOBLEY
CASE NO. 15-CV-01370 EJD

1

attorneys for all parties to this action should be permitted to be present and to conduct

2

examination and cross-examination of the witness. For the avoidance of doubt, I request that

3

attorneys for Defendants be permitted to cross-examine this witness.

4

B.

5

Specification of privilege or duty to refuse to give evidence under the laws of the
state of origin.

6

Under the laws of the United States, a party has a privilege to refuse to give evidence if

7

the evidence discloses a confidential communication between that party and an attorney for that

8

party that was made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and which privilege has not been

9

waived explicitly or implicitly. (Parties also enjoy limited privileges on other grounds not

10

relevant here such as communications between physician and patient, psychotherapist and patient,

11

husband and wife, or clergy and penitent.)

12

The laws of the United States also recognize a privilege against self-incrimination.

13

Outside the strict area of privilege, certain limited immunities are available that may place

14

restrictions on the giving of evidence, such as the limited protection against the disclosure of

15

documents and tangible things prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for a party or

16

a party’s representative.

17

C.

18

It is proposed that the examination take place at the offices of Cooley (UK) LLP,

19

Dashwood, 69 Old Broad Street, London, EC2M 1QS, United Kingdom, on dates to be agreed

20

between the parties and the witness, but in any event no later than the close of the fact discovery

21

period, currently scheduled to conclude on June 30, 2017.

Details.

22

Any correspondence regarding this Letter of Request should be sent to the parties’

23

attorneys and also be copied to Facebook’s English attorneys, Cooley (UK) LLP, Dashwood, 69

24

Old Broad Street, London, EC2M 1QS, United Kingdom marked for the attention of Mark Deem

25

([e-mail]) and Chimé Dorjee ([e-mail]).

26

D.

27

The fees and costs incurred which are reimbursable under the second paragraph of Article

Fees and costs.

28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

9.

PROPOSED AMENDED LETTER OF REQUEST
FOR STEVE LOBLEY
CASE NO. 15-CV-01370 EJD

1

14 or under Article 26 of the Convention will be borne by Facebook.

2

IX.

Conclusion

3

This Court expresses its appreciation for this assistance, states that the courts of the United

4

States are authorized by Section 1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code to extend similar

5

assistance to the Courts of England and is prepared to provide reciprocal assistance to the English

6

courts in any circumstances in which it may be required.

7
8
9
10
11
12

This Court extends to the judicial authorities of England the assurances of the highest
consideration.
Date of request:

April 17

, 2017

Signature and seal of the requesting authority:

15

Howard R. Lloyd, United States Magistrate Judge
Robert F. Peckham Federal Building
280 S 1st Street
San Jose, California 95113
17th
Done in Chambers in San Jose, California, this
day of

16

[Seal of the Court]

13
14

April

, 2017.

Howard R. Lloyd
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

10.

PROPOSED AMENDED LETTER OF REQUEST
FOR STEVE LOBLEY
CASE NO. 15-CV-01370 EJD

1

Dated: April 4, 2017

COOLEY LLP

2
3

/s/ Heidi L. Keefe
Heidi L. Keefe

4

Attorneys for Defendant
FACEBOOK, INC.

5
6
7
8

143374498 v1

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

11.

PROPOSED AMENDED LETTER OF REQUEST
FOR STEVE LOBLEY
CASE NO. 15-CV-01370 EJD