Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00643/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00643-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE NETFLIX ANTITRUST LITIGATION

_____________________________________/

This Document Relates To: 

ALL ACTIONS

 /

No. C 07-00643 WHA

Related to:

No. C 07-01266 WHA 

No. C 07-01978 WHA

ORDER RE DISCOVERY

DISPUTE

With respect to plaintiffs’ letter dated July 10, 2007, and defendant’s letter dated July

12, 2007, it is true that the Netflix-Blockbuster settlement is not specifically alleged in the

complaint, but the complaint does allege that Netflix has tried to restrain competition by

enforcing its patents against Blockbuster. That enforcement action by Netflix has now resulted

in a settlement. In the Court’s judgment, the existing pleadings place in play the issue of

whether the settlement is anti-competitive. Therefore, Netflix is ordered to produce for in

camera inspection the complete agreement between Netflix and Blockbuster, including any side

agreements. This must be done no later than JULY 18, 2007, AT NOON. The Court will then

review the in camera submission to determine whether there is any arguably anti-competitive

effect. If there is, the Court will require the agreement to be produced under a protective order. 

If not, the Court will not require the production.

Case 3:07-cv-00643-WHA Document 54 Filed 07/13/07 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

With respect to the issue of the third-party discovery, the Court has already found

plaintiffs’ proposed third-party subpoenas to be overbroad. They must be limited to the subjects

identified in the prior order dated July 11, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00643-WHA Document 54 Filed 07/13/07 Page 2 of 2