Lynx System Developers, Inc. et al v. Zebra Enterprise Solutions Corporation et al

Filing 163

Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr: ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part 103 Motion to Compel; denying 110 Motion to Compel; denying without prejudice 132 Motion to Compel; denying without prejudice 146 Motion for Leave to File Document ; granting 151 Motion to Redact 147 Transcript, ; denying 152 Motion for Protective Order (Halley, Taylor)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-12297-GAO
LYNX SYSTEM DEVELOPERS, INC. and
ISOLYNX, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ZEBRA ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS CORPORATION,
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and ZIH CORP.,
Defendants.

ORDER
August 10, 2017
O’TOOLE, D.J.
This Order resolves various pending motions.
The plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Production of Documents and Things (dkt. no. 103)
is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth herein. 1 In resolving the motion, the Court
considered only whether the plaintiffs’ asserted trade secrets have been articulated with reasonable
particularity so as to permit discovery to proceed. The Court takes no position at this time on the
merits of other objections to the trade secret claims, including any objection that what is claimed
does not qualify as a trade secret under applicable law.
The following trade secrets meet the reasonable particularity standard: 2, 3, 4, 22, 31, 32,
34, 39, 53, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83,
86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 113, 114,

1

The Court relied on the trade secrets list attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Eric Cheng
in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Identify Alleged Trade Secrets with
Particularity and Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Production of Documents and
Things (dkt. no. 115).

119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139,
140, 141, 142, 144, 145, 146, 148, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169,
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 186, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198,
199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 216, 217, 218, 219, 221, 224, 225,
226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244,
245, 246, 247, 248, 2 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258.
Discovery shall proceed in accordance with these determinations. Accordingly, as to the
above listed claims, the defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Identify Alleged Trade Secrets
with Particularity (dkt. no. 110) is DENIED.
The plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Production of Valuations and Responses to
Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 4 (dkt. no. 132) and the defendants’ Assented-to Motion for Leave to File
a Surreply Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Production of Valuations and
Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 4, and Impoundment of Confidential Information (dkt. no.
146) are DENIED without prejudice in light of the defendants’ response to that motion (dkt. no.
138).
The parties’ Joint Motion for Redaction of Electronic Transcript of December 7, 2016
Hearing (dkt. no. 151) is GRANTED.
The sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ identification of claimed secrets having now been
resolved, the defendants’ Emergency Motion for a Protective Order to Stop Plaintiffs From
Obtaining Discovery of Confidential Technical Information Through Third Party Subpoenas

2

Because the plaintiffs’ trade secret list identified two trade secrets as trade secret number 249
and did not list a trade secret number 248, I have referred to the first of those two claims as trade
secret number 248.
2

Before the Sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ Trade Secret Disclosure Is Resolved (dkt. no. 152) is
DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge

3