Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01882/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01882-44/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 1 After the instant motion was briefed, the Sawyer Action was dismissed for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without prejudice to Sawyer to re-file his claims in state

court. At the motion hearing, this court was informed that Sawyer has re-filed his claims in

state court.

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE EBAY SELLER ANTITRUST

LITIGATION

 /

No. C07-01882 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING EBAY, INC.’S

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

[Re: Docket No. 595]

eBay, Inc. moves for monetary and other sanctions against plaintiffs’ counsel at the

Hagens, Berman, et al. law firm (“Hagens Berman”) for a claimed violation of the court’s

Protective Order (Docket No. 68). Although though no documents have been disclosed to

anyone or filed in any matter other than the instant action, eBay contends that Hagens Berman

violated the Protective Order by reviewing eBay’s documents produced in the instant action,

with an eye toward evaluating the documents’ potential relevance and possible use in another

litigation filed against eBay: Sawyer v. Bill Me Later, et al., C10-00014JSW (the “Sawyer

Action”).1

 Hagens Berman opposes the motion. Upon consideration of the moving and

responding papers, as well as the arguments of counsel, this court rules as follows:

*E-FILED 05-25-2010*

Case 3:07-cv-01882-JSW Document 607 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 4
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

The Protective Order provides that documents designated “Confidential” or “Highly

Confidential” shall be used by any person (other than the producing party) solely for the purpose

of the instant action. (See Docket No. 68, ¶ 3). Such designated documents are not to be used

“for any business, competitive, personal, private, public or other purpose.” (Id.). In any event,

“[a]ll documents and other materials produced in this litigation shall be used for purposes of this

litigation only, whether or not a producing party designates such documents or materials as

Confidential.” (Id. ¶ 1(c)).

To be clear, eBay does not contend that the filing of the Sawyer Action violated the

Protective Order. This court is informed that no documents produced in the instant lawsuit have

been filed in the Sawyer Action. And Hagens Berman represents that no third parties relevant to

the Sawyer Action have been shown any documents produced in the instant antitrust litigation.

Essentially, the instant dispute boils down to a disagreement whether the Protective

Order permits plaintiffs to so-called “mine” eBay’s document production in the instant action as

source material for the Sawyer Action or other potential claims or actions. Plaintiffs protest that

there is no record that any such “mining” has occurred. And, they maintain that, at any rate, the

Protective Order should not be construed so broadly as to constrain plaintiffs’ counsel’s right

and ability to practice law. eBay, however, does not seem to be going that far. Indeed, it agrees

that plaintiffs’ counsel need not wipe their memories clean or somehow compartmentalize the

mental impressions formed in the course of the instant action. At oral argument, eBay also

seemed to agree that, to the extent Hagens Berman believes that documents produced in the

instant lawsuit are also relevant to issues in the Sawyer Action, plaintiffs may pursue separate

discovery as to those documents in that case. Nevertheless, eBay contends that if Hagens

Berman were to review documents produced in the instant litigation for some purpose other than

the instant litigation, then that review constitutes a prohibited “use” under the Protective Order.

Under the plain language of the Protective Order, this court agrees that any such review,

if it occurred, would violate the Protective Order. At the same time, however, it is not clear

whether an actual violation occurred here. eBay’s suspicions are fueled more by the absence of

evidence as to what Hagens Berman may (or may not) have been doing with respect to eBay’s

Case 3:07-cv-01882-JSW Document 607 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 4
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. And, as discussed at the motion hearing, any such violation would be devilishly

hard to police. At any rate, it is equally unclear what harm, if any, has been visited upon eBay as

a result. Without more, this court is disinclined to impose sanctions for civil contempt.

Accordingly, eBay’s motion for sanctions is denied. For good measure, however, this

court makes the following admonition: the subject discovery shall not be reviewed, used, or

disclosed in connection with any matter other than the instant action, absent a court order or

eBay’s consent.

Hagens Berman’s request for an order directing plaintiffs’ counsel to review and search

for documents from the instant litigation that they contend are relevant to the Sawyer Action is

also denied. The dispute over the factual overlap (or not) of the two cases has provided the

backdrop for the instant motion. However, the question whether the Protective Order ought to

be modified to permit use of discovery from the instant litigation in the Sawyer Action is not

properly before this court on the instant motion.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

May 25, 2010

Case 3:07-cv-01882-JSW Document 607 Filed 05/25/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4

5:07-cv-01882-JF Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Aaron H. Darsky aarondarsky@msn.com

Beverly Tse btse@kmllp.com

Brynly R. Llyr bllyr@omm.com

Christine Pedigo Bartholomew cbartholomew@finkelsteinthompson.com,

sanfran@finkelsteinthompson.com

Christopher S. Studebaker cstudebaker@kmllp.com

Daniel Hume dhume@kmslaw.com

David E. Kovel dkovel@kmllp.com

Dixie Lee Noonan dnoonan@omm.com, bbelina@omm.com

Elaine T. Byszewski elaine@hbsslaw.com, jenniferb@hbsslaw.com

George W. Sampson george@hbsslaw.com

I. Stephen Rabin srabin@rabinpeckel.com

Jeff D Friedman jefff@hbsslaw.com, george@hbsslaw.com, sf_filings@hbsslaw.com

Jeffrey Squire squire@bragarwexler.com

Joseph P. Garland jpg65@columbia.edu

Joseph V. McBride jmcbride@rabinpeckel.com

Julie Dawn Wood jwood@omm.com, ihaas@omm.com

Karina Kosharskyy kkosharskyy@kmllp.com

Katherine Robison krobison@omm.com, rgonzalez@omm.com

Kenneth G. Walsh kwalsh@kmllp.com

Michael Andrew McShane mmcshane@audetlaw.com, jbaker@audetlaw.com

Michael Frederick Tubach mtubach@omm.com, kquintanilla@omm.com

Randall W. Edwards REdwards@omm.com

Read Ambler readambler@yahoo.com

Reginald Von Terrell reggiet2@aol.com

Robert L. Stolebarger robert.stolebarger@hro.com

Rosemary M. Rivas rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com, jdito@finkelsteinthompson.com,

sdoerrer@finkelsteinthompson.com, srenwick@finkelsteinthompson.com

Shana E. Scarlett jeneld@hbsslaw.com, shanas@hbsslaw.com

Steve W. Berman carrie@hbsslaw.com, steve@hbsslaw.com

Susan L. Germaise sgermaise@mcguirewoods.com

Thomas Patrick Brown tbrown@omm.com, dbordessa@omm.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 3:07-cv-01882-JSW Document 607 Filed 05/25/10 Page 4 of 4