Nitride Semiconductors Co., Ltd. v. Rayvio Corporation
Filing
121
ORDER REGARDING 111 DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO QUALIFY DR. PINER AS AN EXPERT WITH ACCESS TO HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION UNDER THE PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 7/13/2018. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2018)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
NITRIDE SEMICONDUCTORS CO., LTD.,
8
Plaintiff,
v.
9
10
RAYVIO CORPORATION,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 17-cv-02952-EJD (SVK)
Defendant.
12
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST TO QUALIFY DR. PINER AS
AN EXPERT WITH ACCESS TO
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION UNDER THE
PROTECTIVE ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 111
13
Before the Court is the parties’ joint statement regarding a dispute over the request of
14
Defendant RayVio Corporation (“RayVio”) to qualify Dr. Edwin Piner as an expert. ECF 111.
15
Plaintiff Nitride Semiconductors Co., Ltd. (“NS”) objects to the request. ECF 112. The Court
16
refers to and incorporates by reference the relevant case background and legal discussion set forth
17
in this Court’s order regarding Plaintiff’s request to qualify Dr. Doolittle as an expert. ECF 114.
18
For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s request to qualify Dr. Piner as an expert with access
19
to highly confidential information under the protective order is GRANTED.
20
RayVio represents, and the documents support, that Dr. Piner is not currently engaged in
21
commercial consulting activities and has not been so engaged for more than five years. Therefore,
22
there does not appear to be any threat of disclosure of NS confidential information to a competitor
23
or other entity. Further, Rayvio has made a sufficient showing that Dr. Piner’s company, AEM is
24
the entity through which Dr. Piner offers his litigation support services. 1 RayVio has complied
25
1
26
27
28
By contrast, Dr. Doolittle was involved in an admittedly commercial enterprise, the focus of
which was development of a technology which Rayvio also utilizes. While this technology is not
the direct subject of the lawsuit, Rayvio represented that it had proprietary rights in its
development of the subject technology. Thus, there was evidence of a tangible risk that Dr.
Doolittle would not be able to separate the highly confidential information he would glean from
reviewing Rayvio's proprietary information from his commercial endeavor.
1
with the requirements of the Protective Order in disclosing Dr. Piner’s litigation services in the
2
past five years, and those engagements are not the basis for NS’s objections. NS’s concern that
3
Dr. Piner’s commercial engagements through AEM would put NS confidential data at risk of
4
disclosure is not supported. More particularly, the absence of current commercial engagements by
5
AEM, as distinguished from litigation support services, is unrefuted, and any link between NS
6
confidential material and a commercial enterprise is unestablished. Finally, concern about a
7
speculative future commercial consulting assignment disclosing unspecified NS confidential data
8
is simply too tenuous to create a tangible risk warranting denial of qualification of Dr. Piner under
9
the Protective Order.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 13, 2018
12
13
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
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?