Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04401/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04401-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 NETBLUE, INC. ET AL,

Defendant. /

No. C-05-04401 SC (EDL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

STRIKE CONFIDENTIALITY

DESIGNATIONS

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s October 20, 2006 motion to strike the “Confidential” or

“Highly Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designation of certain documents and information

Defendant designated confidential under the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this

matter. Although the motion was fully briefed in November, the hearing on the motion has been

continued multiple times in order to allow the parties more time to resolve the issue on their own, as

ordered by Judge Conti. 

This dispute should not still be before the Court. During a November 17, 2006 Status

Conference, Judge Conti ordered the parties to work out all pending discovery issues or risk

sanctions. See Doc. No. 137, November 17, 2006 Status Conference Minute Entry (“Within 2

weeks the attorneys are Ordered to meet in person and resolve all of their discovery disputes without

the aid of Magistrate Judge Laporte. If the attorneys fail to resolve their disputes the Court will

impose monetary sanctions as well as include an adverse instruction to be read to the Jury.”). This

dispute, however, was not resolved and the motion remains pending, despite the allowance of

additional time. The Court therefore has considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition

to this motion, and finds that this matter is appropriate for a decision without oral

Case 3:05-cv-04401-SC Document 179 Filed 01/19/07 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 On September 26, 2006, Judge Conti denied an administrative motion to seal the list of email

affiliates and 19 other exhibits on the basis that Plaintiff had failed to designate only those materials that

qualify under the appropriate standard under the parties’ protective order. See Sept. 26, 2006 Order

Denying Administrative Motion (Doc. No. 72). The confidentiality of the affiliate list was never

specifically addressed, and the list was never re-filed in the public domain. In subsequent filings, the

parties and the Court continued to treat the affiliate list as confidential. See, e.g., October 30, 2006

Order Granting Administrative Motion (Doc. No. 117) (granting application to seal the documents at

issue, lodged as Exhibits A, B, and C to the Grabowski Declaration filed in support of Plaintiff’s

Motion to Strike). The affiliate list and the other documents are currently filed under seal. Id.

2

argument, see Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly, the Court hereby vacates the January 23, 2007

hearing on the matter, and rules as follows:

Plaintiff requested that the Court strike the confidential designations of: (1) Defendant’s list

of email affiliates, produced on Aug. 28, 2006; (2) Defendant’s list of email affiliates and addresses,

produced on Oct. 4, 2006; and (3) Defendant’s affiliate applications and list manager contracts,

produced on Sept. 3, 2006. Defendant argues that the information is confidential commercial

information and should remain protected.

The parties’ stipulated protective order allows a party to designate as confidential any

documents or information “that qualify for protection under standards developed under F.R.Civ. P.

26(c).” Stipulated Protective Order (Doc. No. 12) at § 2.3. Rule 26(c) provides that a protective

order may be entered to limit disclosure or specify the manner in which a party reveals “a trade

secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(c)(7). A “trade secret” under California law is information which: “(1) Derives independent

economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons

who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) Is the subject of efforts that are

reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Cal. Civ.

Code § 3426.1(d). Although the question as to the list of affiliates is closer than the question of

applications and contracts, at this stage Defendant has made a sufficient showing that the

information derives independent economic value or that competitors could obtain economic value

from its disclosure or use, and it has made reasonable efforts to maintain the information’s secrecy.1

Plaintiff has not provided evidence to refute Defendant’s assertions. Accordingly, Defendant’s

motion is DENIED.

This Order, however, is not intended to affect any past or future applications to seal

Case 3:05-cv-04401-SC Document 179 Filed 01/19/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

documents filed with the Court, nor to influence any pretrial determinations of the confidentiality or

admissibility of the documents or information to be used at trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04401-SC Document 179 Filed 01/19/07 Page 3 of 3