BladeRoom Group Limited et al v. Facebook, Inc.

Filing 291

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 268 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 13. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2017)

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 Case No.5:15-cv-01370-EJD (HRL) ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE JOINT REPORT NO. 13 v. FACEBOOK, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 268 Defendants. 17 18 In Discovery Dispute Joint Report (“DDJR”) #13, defendant Facebook challenges the 19 sufficiency of plaintiff Bripco’s responses to interrogatories 17, 18, and 19. Each of these 20 interrogatories is based on plaintiffs’ response to Interrogatory 15, which asked for a detailed 21 description of each of the 25 claimed trade secrets that defendants allegedly misappropriated. The 22 sufficiency of plaintiffs’ responses to number 15 was the subject of DDJR #12. 23 Each of the three interrogatories here in issue builds on the responses to number 15. They 24 pose follow-up questions: what measures did you take to maintain the secrecy of the secrets 25 (number 17); how does the secret differ from public information and “prior art” (18); and what are 26 all the facts supporting their supposed misappropriation (19)? 27 28 In its argument on number 17, Facebook spends time (wasted time) arguing that many of the secrets could not possibly be secret because they are well known, alluding to countless photos 1 on the internet and elsewhere. It also complains that Bripco only gave “examples” of security 2 measures it has taken (leaving the door open to come up with more measures later) and also that 3 Bripco gave no time frame for when any particular measure was deployed. 4 As for number 18, Facebook apparently included in its own interrogatory responses a list 5 of hundreds of examples of what it asserted were “prior art” and argues that in answering 18 the 6 plaintiff must explain how its secrets are different from those examples that Facebook cited. It 7 also spent time arguing the lack of merit of the claimed secrets. 8 9 On number 19, Facebook thinks that plaintiff’s factual basis for the theft of its trade secrets should be broken down and described individual secret by individual secret. In presenting its side of the story in DDJR #13, Bripco offers to supplement number 17 to 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 give the time frame(s), argues that the attempt in number 18 to saddle it with the task of attacking 12 Facebook’s selections of so-called prior art in an interrogatory response is out of bounds, and 13 agrees to further supplement its response to 19 once it has had a chance to inspect two Facebook 14 data centers. Otherwise, it says, its responses to interrogatories 17, 18, and 19, particularly in 15 light of the supplemented responses to number 15, are sufficient. 16 17 18 19 The court agrees with Bripco, requires it to do what it offered on 17 and 19, and otherwise declines to require any further supplementation of its responses to these three interrogatories. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 22, 2017 20 21 HOWARD R. LLOYD United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?