Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03363/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03363-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROOTS READY MADE GARMENTS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GAP INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-03363 CRB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

ORDER UPHOLDING

CONFIDENTIALITY

DESIGNATIONS

Plaintiff Roots Ready moves for an order upholding Roots’ confidentiality

designations of two documents: (1) An Exclusive Distribution Agreement executed by Roots

and Gabana Gulf on May 14, 2004; and (2) A Letter of Understanding executed by Roots and

Gabana Gulf on May 13, 2003. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED. 

The hearing scheduled for February 15, 2008 is VACATED.

Parties seeking discovery are entitled to all information “reasonably calculated to lead

to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). However, the Court may,

for good cause, issue an order “requiring that a trade secret or other confidential . . .

commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way” to protect a

party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(c)(1)(G). In Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir.

1992), the Ninth Circuit held that confidentiality is appropriate where “the risk of inadvertent

Case 3:07-cv-03363-CRB Document 126 Filed 02/01/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2007\3363\Confidentiality Order.wpd 2

disclosure of trade secrets to a competitor” outweighs “the risk . . . that protection of . . .

trade secrets [will] impair[] prosecution [of the discovering party’s] claims.” 

Roots has persuasively demonstrated that disclosure of the content of the Distribution

Agreement and Letter of Understanding in public court filings would impair ongoing

negotiations – for distribution rights in the Middle East and Africa – between Roots and two

apparel companies. Because the Distribution Agreement and Letter of Understanding

represent the last two agreements entered into by Roots with a clothing manufacturer or

supplier, there is a significant risk that Roots’ bargaining partners could rely on the terms set

forth in the documents to influence current negotiations. 

On the other hand, Gap has not explained how prosecution of its claims would be

prejudiced by the confidentiality order Roots seeks. Even if Gap were required to redact

reference to the documents in their papers and file copies of the documents under seal, Gap is

still entitled to share the documents – fully and unredacted – with its counsel, experts,

employees and witnesses. Moreover, a confidentiality order would not preclude Gap from

relying on the documents in its papers and throughout the litigation. While Gap may find it

annoying to limit reference to the documents in public filings, there can be no serious

argument that a confidentiality order would be prejudicial. Accordingly, the Court hereby

upholds Roots’ confidentiality designations of the Distribution Agreement and Letter of

Understanding. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2008 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-03363-CRB Document 126 Filed 02/01/08 Page 2 of 2