Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-00404/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-00404-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(b) - Civil Action to Protect Trade Secrets

---

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

ALTA DEVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.18-cv-00404-LHK (VKD)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE 

ESI CUSTODIANS

Re: Dkt. No. 90

Plaintiff Alta Devices, Inc. (“Alta Devices”) seeks an order requiring defendant LG 

Electronics, Inc. (“LGE”) to conduct searches for responsive electronically stored information 

(“ESI”) in the custodial files of 33 LGE custodians. LGE opposes this request, and argues that 

custodial ESI searches should be limited to 8-10 custodians.

Alta Devices emphasizes that the information it needs to prove trade secret 

misappropriation by LGE is almost entirely in LGE’s possession. Alta Devices has assembled a 

list of names of the current and former LGE employees and agents that it believes played some 

role in the alleged misappropriation based on interactions between Alta Devices and LGE. 

LGE counters that the discovery Alta Devices seeks is not proportional to the needs of the 

case. In particular, LGE points out that several of the 33 custodians have, at best, only limited 

involvement in events or conduct relevant to the case. In addition, LGE says that collecting ESI 

from 33 custodians will be unduly burdensome for several reasons, including the location of the 

information and the sheer number of custodians. Finally, LGE argues that three proposed 

custodians are senior executives with significant responsibilities, and that they are entitled to the 

protection of the “apex” doctrine. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 282 

F.R.D. 259, 263-64 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (describing purpose of doctrine and its application with 

respect to depositions).

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 93 Filed 02/20/19 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

Alta Devices’ demand for ESI discovery from 33 custodians is not proportional to the 

needs of this case. Based on Alta Devices own discussion of relevance, it appears that the several 

of the proposed LGE custodians are on Alta Devices’ list because they expressed interest in or 

requested information, and not because there is a factual basis to believe they actually obtained, 

used, or disclosed Alta Devices’ trade secret information. However, the Court disagrees with LGE 

that simply because a prospective custodian happens to be a senior executive, such custodian is 

not subject to collection of responsive ESI.

Alta Devices may obtain custodial ESI discovery from no more than 10 LGE custodians, 

subject to the following guidelines:

1. Alta Devices may elect to obtain ESI from any custodian identified in LGE’s initial 

disclosures.

2. Alta Devices may not obtain ESI from any custodian whose only known involvement 

in the matter is the setting up of a meeting, the expression of interest in a meeting or in 

obtaining information, or the negotiation of an NDA.

3. Alta Devices may elect to obtain ESI from a custodian who is a senior executive, if 

Alta Devices has a factual basis to believe that such senior executive has relevant 

information. Based on the parties’ joint submission, it appears that Alta Devices does 

not have a factual basis to obtain ESI discovery from Skott Ahn.

4. In selecting custodians, Alta Devices should consider carefully LGE’s representations 

about the futility of a custodial search for ESI of former employees for whom LGE 

represents it has no such information. 

This order is without prejudice to Alta Devices’ ability to move for ESI discovery from 

additional LGE custodians, based on a showing of good cause. However, in evaluating any such 

further request, the Court will consider shifting the cost of such collection to Alta Devices.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 93 Filed 02/20/19 Page 2 of 2