Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00535/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00535-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

17-cv-00535-CAB-JLB

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

eMove, Inc., et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

U-Haul International, Inc., et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-cv-00535-CAB-JLB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

DISCOVERY RESPONSES

[ECF No. 68]

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (ECF No. 68) is GRANTED IN 

PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

1. Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 3 relating to Defendants’ advertising or 

promotion: Plaintiffs’ request for an order compelling documents responsive to Request 

for Production No. 3 is denied. Defendants’ relevancy objection is sustained. Plaintiffs 

have not shown that this request is relevant to Count Three of the Second Amended 

Complaint (“SAC”) or Defendants’ “fair use” and “unclean hands” defenses. While the 

defenses of “fair use” and “unclean hands” appear in the answer (ECF No. 53), these 

defenses are not applicable to Plaintiffs’ causes of action because there are no factual 

allegations of actual use or infringement of Plaintiffs’ trademarks. (See also ECF No. 56-

1 at 12 (Plaintiffs’ argument: “In the SAC, Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants engaged 

in trade secret-related wrongdoing.”).)

2. Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 4 relating to performance under the 

Settlement Agreement: Plaintiffs’ request for an order compelling documents responsive 

Case 3:17-cv-00535-CAB-JLB Document 76 Filed 12/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17-cv-00535-CAB-JLB

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

to Request for Production No. 4 is granted in part and denied in part. To the extent the 

request seeks all documents arising from, referring to, or relating to performance under or 

compliance with the Settlement Agreement with respect to Plaintiffs’ trade secrets, the 

Court overrules Defendants’ objections that this request seeks irrelevant, disproportional,

duplicative, and unduly burdensome information. Defendants’ objections are otherwise 

sustained. 

Defendants take the position that “there is a case and controversy as to whether there 

are any trade secrets Defendants must keep secret.” (ECF No. 71 at 8.) And as part of 

Defendants counterclaims against Plaintiffs, Defendants seek a declaration that there are 

no trade secrets covered by the Settlement Agreement due in part to the alleged facts that 

“Counter Claimants have never known any matter that constitutes Counter Defendants’ 

trade secrets,” and that the trade secrets are not readily ascertainable. (ECF No. 53 at 13-

14, ¶¶16-18.) Documents responsive to Request for Production No. 4 (as limited above) 

are relevant to assessing these allegations. Therefore, Defendants shall collect and produce 

documents responsive to Request for Production No. 4, as limited above, within one week 

of any ruling of Plaintiffs’ pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. 56), if Counterclaim Count 

1 survives, or by January 10, 2018, whichever comes sooner. 

3. Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 5 relating to communications about 

ownership transactions: Plaintiffs’ request for an order compelling documents responsive 

to Request for Production No. 5 is granted in part and denied in part. To the extent the 

request seeks HAH-ownership-transaction-related communications that reference the 

Settlement Agreement or Plaintiffs’ Trade Secrets, the Court overrules Defendants’ 

objection that this request is not proportional to the needs of the case. Communications 

that reference the Settlement Agreement or Plaintiffs’ Trade Secrets are relevant to assess 

Defendants’ allegations about their lack of understanding of the trade secrets covered by 

the Settlement Agreement. Defendants’ objections are otherwise sustained. Therefore, 

Defendants shall collect and produce documents responsive to Request for Production No.

5, as limited above, within one week of any ruling of Plaintiffs’ pending motion to dismiss 

Case 3:17-cv-00535-CAB-JLB Document 76 Filed 12/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17-cv-00535-CAB-JLB

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

(ECF No. 56), if Counterclaim Count 1 survives, or by January 10, 2018, whichever 

comes sooner. 

Further, to the extent responsive communications reveal confidential, proprietary 

and trade secret material of third parties, the parties shall meet and confer as to the most 

efficient way to address these confidentiality concerns (e.g., redaction or amending the 

designations provided for in the operative Protective Order). Any motion to amend the 

Protective Order shall be filed no later than January 10, 2018. 

4. Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 1 relating to Defendants’ compliance with the 

Settlement Agreement: Plaintiffs’ request for an order compelling a substantive response

to Interrogatory No. 1 is granted in part and denied in part. To the extent the 

interrogatory seeks a response sufficient to show the reasonable steps taken by Defendants 

to maintain the secrecy of Plaintiffs’ trade secrets under the Settlement Agreement, the 

Court overrules Defendants’ objections that this request seeks irrelevant, overbroad, and 

disproportional information. Defendants’ objections are otherwise sustained. 

The Settlement Agreement states that Defendants “shall take reasonable steps to 

maintain the secrecy of Claimants’ trade secrets.” (ECF No. 52-3 at 4.) While there is no 

claim or defense regarding this obligation, a substantive interrogatory response is relevant 

to assess Defendants’ counterclaim for declaratory relief concerning their understanding of 

the trade secrets covered by the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs argue that the 

interrogatory is also relevant to their unfair competition claim, but the Court is not 

persuaded as the unfair competition claim does not allege any facts in support.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:17-cv-00535-CAB-JLB Document 76 Filed 12/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17-cv-00535-CAB-JLB

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

Therefore, Defendants shall collect and produce documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ 

Interrogatory No. 1, as limited above, within one week of any ruling of Plaintiffs’ pending 

motion to dismiss (ECF No. 56), if Counterclaim Count 1 survives, or by January 10, 

2018, whichever comes sooner.

Dated: December 20, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00535-CAB-JLB Document 76 Filed 12/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4