Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-04483/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-04483-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

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

POSTX CORPORATION

Plaintiff,

 v.

SECURE DATA IN MOTION, d/b/a SIGABA,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 02-04483 SI

(Related Case No. C 03-0521 SI)

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

By letter briefs, the parties seek an order fromthe Court requiring the re-designation ofdocuments and

deposition testimony previously designated as “Confidential” and “HighlyConfidential– Attorney’s Eyes Only”

(“AEO”). Throughout the case, both parties have designated many documents AEO, and they now agree that

many ofthese materials should be re-classified. They have met and conferred about the over-designation issue

over the past year and been unable to reach agreement. 

Each party contends that the other has improperly over-designated documents as confidential and

AEO. According to Sigaba, many documents designated by PostX as AEO contain information that is no

longer commercially sensitive because it is more than two years old and public in some instances. 

The parties apparently agree that the Protective Order should be amended to include new criteria for

re-designating materials as AEO, and they substantially agree on the criteria themselves. See Def.’s Letter Br.

at 4-5; Pl.’s Letter Br., Ex. B at 1-2. They disagree on (1) whether all materials currently designated as AEO

should be de-designated to confidential, or whether both AEO and confidentialmaterials should be completely

de-designated; and (2) whether the Court should impose the restriction that de-designated discovery materials

Case 3:02-cv-04483-SI Document 832 Filed 08/17/05 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

2

should only be used in connection with this litigation. PostX also proposes that the Protective Order be

amended so that only AEO documents are required to be filed under seal.

The Court agrees with the parties that de-designation ofdiscovery materials is appropriate, and finds

that both AEO and confidentialdocumentsshould be de-designated. All documents may then be re-designated

according to the criteria setforth in Sigaba’s letter brief. The Court also ORDERS that only AEO documents

must be filed under seal. 

The Court also considers the limitationthat all discovery materials may only be used in connectionwith

the litigation to be entirely reasonable, and imposes this restriction on the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:02-cv-04483-SI Document 832 Filed 08/17/05 Page 2 of 2