Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01370/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01370-11/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BLADEROOM GROUP LIMITED, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.5:15-cv-01370-EJD (HRL)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

JOINT REPORT NO. 9

Re: Dkt. No. 198

In Discovery Dispute Joint Report (“DDJR”) #9, plaintiffs seek an order requiring the 

Emerson defendants to produce further documents responsive to Request for Production No.

(“RFP”) 45. Defendants say they have produced all they have.

The three Emerson defendants are: Emerson Electric Co. (“EEC”), Emerson Network 

Power Solutions, Inc. (“ENPS”), and Liebert Corporation (“Liebert”). As the court understands 

it, EEC is the overall parent of a corporate conglomerate. One of EEC’s subsidiaries was called 

Emerson Network Power (“ENP”). ENP itself had various subsidiaries, including ENPS and 

Liebert.

Plaintiffs contend that the Emerson defendants, in cahoots with defendant Facebook, 

misappropriated their trade secrets relating to modular data center design and construction. 

Plaintiffs argue that they have identified the Hyperscale Solutions division of ENPS as the place 

where those stolen secrets now reside and are being used.

A few months ago, EEC consummated a sale of ENP (which, of course, included ENPS 

Case 5:15-cv-01370-EJD Document 243 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

and the other ENP subsidiaries). Not unexpectedly, for evidence of unjust enrichment, plaintiffs 

now want to learn how much of the ENP sales price represents the value of plaintiffs’ alleged 

secrets.

The court is told that the same RFP 45 was propounded to the three Emerson defendants. 

It seeks “financial” information, including valuations, relating to any sale, spin off, or disposition 

of ENPS.1

Eventually, the Emerson defendants produced two documents that showed what part of the 

sale price of ENP was allocated to ENPS. The allocation was very small. Plaintiffs cry “foul.”

They want more. Defendants say there is no more that’s responsive, and the court understands 

that is true as to each of the Emerson defendants and any subsidiaries.

In the DDJR, plaintiffs say they want information about the Emerson defendants’ 

“Hyperscale” and “network power” business. That may be, but it occurs to the court that plaintiffs 

seem to be enlarging the scope of RFP 45, which very specifically asked for financial information 

relating to a sale or disposition of ENPS. It is not clear that plaintiffs would be entitled (on 

account of proportionality) to information responsive to the seemingly expanded definitions of 

what they want, but they have not asked for it in RFP 45. Plaintiffs’ request is denied.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2017

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1

The actual words used in RFP 45 are “Emerson Network Power,” but the definitions 

accompanying the RFP tell the reader that Emerson Network Power is just plaintiffs’ shorthand 

for Emerson Network Power Solutions, Inc.

Case 5:15-cv-01370-EJD Document 243 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 2