Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07592/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07592-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1132 E.R.I.S.A.

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENIKO PRAKASH,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

PULSENT CORPORATION,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-7592 SC (BZ)

NINTH DISCOVERY ORDER

Before the court are two related motions: Sun Life seeks

an order compelling Verseon: (1) to produce documents which

Verseon archived from Eniko Prakash’s computer, in their

original electronic format with metadata intact; (2) to

produce the laptop computer which Eniko used for inspection

and copying by its expert and; (3) to permit Sun Life’s expert

to inspect Verseon’s computer system for documents reflecting

or relating to Eniko’s work for Verseon. Verseon seeks a

protective order placing restrictions on its production of the

archival CD. Having read the moving papers and the

opposition, the court finds no need for argument. IT IS

ORDERED as follows:

Case 3:06-cv-07592-SC Document 199 Filed 03/26/08 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

1. Sun Life’s motion to compel an inspection of

Verseon’s corporate computer system is DENIED. In reaching

this decision, I have balanced many factors, including the

following:

(a) Since Verseon is not a party, I am sensitive to

protecting its confidential and proprietary information. 

While it is true that the plaintiffs have an ownership

interest in Verseon and are, or have been, officers and

directors, Verseon has shown, and Sun Life does not dispute,

that plaintiffs are minority owners.

(b) Verseon has made an adequate showing that there are

documents on its computer system, especially the computer

simulations, which would be entitled to protection under 

Rule 26 (c)(1)(G) as confidential or proprietary information. 

(c) Sun Life has not shown that the information is so

material to its case as to warrant the inspection of Verseon’s

computer system. Verseon has already deposed and obtained

documents from plaintiffs and Verseon employees. Discovery

has been proceeding for about a year. In compliance with

recent Orders, Verseon personnel have again searched Verseon’s

files looking for the documents which Sun Life repeatedly

speculates have been hidden from it. See Declarations of

Ahuja, Datta and Kita. Notwithstanding the court’s

admonition, Sun Life has still produced no documents to show

that it has a basis for believing, not just speculating, that

Eniko Prakash was working for any period other than that to

which she admits, September 2006 through March of 2007. 

Absent some evidence that documents have been concealed, Sun

Case 3:06-cv-07592-SC Document 199 Filed 03/26/08 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Life is not entitled to a general inspection of Verseon’s

computer systems, especially since it is undisputed they

contain confidential and proprietary information.

(d) Sun Life’s repeated reliance on cases such as

Playboy Enter. Inc. v. Welles, 60 F.Supp.2d 1050 (S.D. Cal.

1999), is misplaced. Welles is distinguishable on many

grounds. Welles involved the search of a personal laptop

belonging to a defendant who had admitted erasing emails

requested by plaintiff, which could readily be retrieved by

forensic inspection. There was no request in Welles to

inspect the computer system of a corporate non-party and there

was no claim that the computer contained confidential or

proprietary information.

2. In its opposition to Verseon’s motion, Sun Life does

not explain why production of the archival CD, as proposed by

Verseon in its motion, is not adequate for Sun Life’s

purposes. Instead, Sun Life merely reiterates that the

documents it seeks are relevant and complains about the way

the archival CD was handled in the past. Accordingly,

Verseon’s motion for a protective order with respect to the

archival CD is GRANTED and Sun Life’s motion to compel is

DENIED. The procedure proposed by plaintiff shall be

followed.

3. Sun Life’s motion with respect to production of the

laptop computer is GRANTED, subject to its being inspected

pursuant to the “attorney’s eyes only” protective order

previously entered. Verseon has made no showing that any

information remaining on the laptop which is traceable to

Case 3:06-cv-07592-SC Document 199 Filed 03/26/08 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Eniko contains confidential or proprietary information of such

a nature that this level of protection would not be adequate. 

Sun Life is not a competitor of Verseon and there is no

showing that Sun Life’s counsel or the expert are regularly

employed by Verseon’s competitors. 

The court is more troubled by Ahuja’s declaration that

after he began using the laptop, he stored confidential and

proprietary information on it such as the computer simulations

discussed earlier. It is not clear how much confidential

information is on the laptop since Ahuja did not begin using

it until after Eniko left the company in March of 2007, and at

some point, Ahuja knew that documents stored on the laptop

were an issue in discovery. This concern can be addressed by

adding one additional condition to the search of the laptop. 

The expert shall not open up any file or document placed on

the computer after March 1, 2007, unless it is clear to him

that the file or document was created by Eniko.

4. The CD and the laptop shall be produced by April 1,

2008.

5. Sun Life’s request to be reimbursed for its expert’s

travel is DENIED. It has made no showing why its San

Francisco counsel had to hire an expert in Southern California

to conduct an inspection in the Bay Area.

Dated: March 26, 2008

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\PRAKASH V. PULSENT\DISC9.ORDER.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-07592-SC Document 199 Filed 03/26/08 Page 4 of 4