Kannan v. Apple Inc.

Filing 278

Order denying 277 Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge DeMarchi. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on June 15, 2020.(ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

RAJA KANNAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. 5:17-cv-07305-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEMARCHI
Re: Dkt. No. 277

Before the Court is Plaintiff Raja Kannan’s motion for relief from Magistrate Judge

13

DeMarchi’s nondispositive pretrial order. See Dkt. 277 (“Mot.”). For the foregoing reasons, the

14

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request.

15

In January 2020, this Court issued an order granting Karen Ford’s (Plaintiff’s former

16

attorney) motion to withdraw. In this order, the Court referred the issue of what to do with the

17

“Attorneys’ Eyes Only” (“AEO”) documents to Magistrate Judge DeMarchi. See Dkt. 229.

18

Thereafter, Magistrate Judge DeMarchi had various hearings with the Parties regarding the AEO

19

documents. Ultimately, on May 27, 2020, Magistrate Judge DeMarchi ordered Defendant Apple

20

to (1) produce a written summary of information regarding the eight Apple employees who

21

reported to Mr. Kotni and (2) review the confidential expert reports to ensure the redactions were

22

limited to confidential, employee-specific compensation or personnel information. See Order re

23

Defendant’s AEO Designations (“Judge DeMarchi Order”) at 2, Dkt. 262. Judge DeMarchi

24

determined that Defendant did not need to further redact the AEO material or reproduce additional

25

documents because Plaintiff did not state a specific need for (1) any particular document or (2) for

26

information that was not already addressed by the summary of employee-specific information.

27
28

Case No.: 5:17-cv-07305-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEMARCHI
1

1
2

See id. Plaintiff argues this ruling was “clearly erroneous and contrary to the law.” Mot. at 3.
The cases Plaintiff relies on are not persuasive. For instance, the Taser International Inc.

3

v. Stinger Systems Inc. case that Plaintiff quotes is unhelpful. There, the pro se litigant objected to

4

a narrow portion of the AEO stipulation—he argued that one paragraph of the protective order did

5

not protect his legal interests. Judge DeMarchi specifically instructed Plaintiff to state (1) a

6

specific need for a particular document or (2) his need for specific information not addressed in

7

the ordered summaries. Plaintiff declined to do this. Instead, Plaintiff asked Judge DeMarchi to

8

review the AEO documents in their entirety to determine what information should be redacted

9

and/or anonymized. See Dkt. 269 at 55 (“Because you did not make specific requests about
specific documents, you did everything with the same kind of statement that everything is

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

relevant. I am not going to go through the documents myself and make calls for you, that’s just an

12

unreasonable expectation of the court.”). Indeed, in this motion, Plaintiff again declines to

13

indicate which documents he feels are necessary to his case and over-redacted. Plaintiff also

14

seems to misunderstand his pro se status. He argues that because he is pro se, he is now entitled to

15

see everything that an attorney would be able to see. See Mot. at 5–6. While it is true that upon

16

termination, the client is presumed to be entitled full access to the attorney’s file, this rule must be

17

understood in context to AEO designated documents. The documents Plaintiff seeks contain

18

highly sensitive information about other Apple employees, which is why they are designated

19

AEO. Plaintiff’s pro se status does not change this.

20
21
22
23
24
25

Accordingly, because Plaintiff did not provide Judge DeMarchi or this Court with specific
requests about specific AEO documents, his motion for relief is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 15, 2020
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

26
27
28

Case No.: 5:17-cv-07305-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEMARCHI
2