Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc. et al v. IQVIA Holdings Inc. et al

Filing 315

ORDER Granting 284 Ex Parte Application to Enforce the Court's June 29,2021 Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher on 9/9/21. (dlg)

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 315 Filed 09/09/21 PageID.15091 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE
SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,

15

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO
ENFORCE THE COURT’S JUNE 29,
2021 ORDER

Plaintiffs,

13
14

Case No.: 19-cv-1865-GPC (DEB)

v.
IQVIA INC., et al.,
Defendants.

16

[DKT. NO. 284]

17
I.

18

INTRODUCTION

19

Before the Court is Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to Enforce the Court’s

20

June 29, 2021 Order. Dkt. No. 284. At issue is Defendants’ Request for Production Nos. 73

21

and 83, which seek Plaintiffs’ source code and revision history. Defendants request

22

Plaintiffs produce the source code for inspection in a manner that permits the use of

23

automated comparison techniques. Dkt. No. 284-1 at 2. Plaintiffs oppose. Dkt. Nos. 288

24

and 297.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Application.1

25
26
27
1

28

Any dispute over MedBlocX must be brought pursuant to the Court’s chambers rules.
1
19-cv-1865-GPC (DEB)

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 315 Filed 09/09/21 PageID.15092 Page 2 of 4

1

II.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

2

On June 29, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to produce their source code for

3

inspection. Dkt. No. 248. On August 3, 2021, Defendants filed the instant Application

4

claiming Plaintiffs are “undermin[ing] the June 29 Order by making the review of their

5

source code unduly onerous.” Dkt. No. 284-1 at 2. Specifically, Defendants contend

6

“Plaintiffs refused to allow their source code and Defendants’ source code to be loaded on

7

the same machine so that ‘automated comparison techniques’ could be used.” Id. at 3. On

8

August 4, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition raising objections and concerns with

9

automated comparison. Dkt. No. 288; see also Dkt. No. 297.

10

The Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing regarding the: (1) benefits

11

to Defendants; (2) prejudice to Plaintiffs; and (3) logistics and costs associated with

12

forensically wiping source code from a computer following any automated comparison.

13

Dkt. No. 292. On August 20, 2021, the parties’ filed responsive supplemental briefs. Dkt.

14

Nos. 296, 297.

15
16
17

III.

DISCUSSION
In support of their request for automated comparison, Defendants submitted a

declaration from their forensic software analyst opining that automated comparison:

18

• is extremely common . . . in trade secret disputes;

19

• render[s] [inspection] much more reliable;

20

• allows a much more in-depth analysis and comparison of the
Defendants’ source code and the source code alleged to
contain Plaintiffs’ trade secrets;

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

• reduces the amount of time required to locate the code that
uses similar data names . . . even where the code is understood
to have been developed independently, and even where the
code is written in different programming languages;
• can help identify correlations and/or similarities, based on . . .
textual elements within the source code;
• minimize[s] the time and cost required to perform source code
analysis;
2
19-cv-1865-GPC (DEB)

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 315 Filed 09/09/21 PageID.15093 Page 3 of 4

1

• reduc[es] the overall volume of code that must be evaluated;

2

• aid[s] in understanding temporal relationships; and

3
4

• will be more thorough and comprehensive than relying only
on manual inspection.

5

Dkt. No. 296-1 at 4, 6–8. Additionally, the analyst declares, “Upon completion of the code

6

inspection, either or both parties’ source code can be securely erased.” Id. at 9.

7

In opposition, Plaintiffs’ claim: (1) automated comparison of their source code “was

8

not part of any discovery request”; (2) “an artificial comparison . . . serve[s] no purpose

9

but to mislead and confuse the Court and the jury about issues that are not in dispute”; and

10

(3) wiping or completely overwriting the computer with both parties’ source code prevents

11

Plaintiffs from (a) “confirming that its source code was not altered or stolen” and

12

(b) “check[ing]” the evidence forming Defendants’ expert’s opinion. Dkt. No. 297 at 5,

13

7–8.

14

The Court finds Defendants’ request for automated comparison is a reasonable and

15

(potentially) efficient manner of satisfying Defendants’ Requests for Production. The

16

Court further finds Plaintiffs’ concern about jury confusion is speculative and premature at

17

this stage of the litigation. Regarding Plaintiffs’ concern over maintaining the

18

confidentiality of its source code, the Court has entered a Protective Order (Dkt. No. 179)

19

and also orders the parties to adopt and implement a protocol that will allow Plaintiffs to

20

verify their source code was neither altered nor stolen during the automated comparison.

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
3
19-cv-1865-GPC (DEB)

Case 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB Document 315 Filed 09/09/21 PageID.15094 Page 4 of 4

1

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Ex Parte Application as follows:

2

(1) Plaintiffs must provide their source code in a form that allows automated comparison;

3

(2) the parties must meet and confer and adopt a protocol for conducting the automated

4

comparison on or before September 17, 2021; (3) the parties must complete the automated

5

comparison on or before September 24, 2021; and (4) Defendants are to bear all costs

6

associated with implementation of the automated comparison protocol.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 9, 2021

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
19-cv-1865-GPC (DEB)