Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02361/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02361-32/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NETFLIX, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

BLOCKBUSTER, INC.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Case No. C-06-2361 WHA (JCS)

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S

REDACTION OF BOARD MINUTES 

Without objection from Plaintiff, Defendant submitted to the Court minutes of the Board of

Directors of Blockbuster, Inc. for in camera review. Along with those minutes, Defendant

submitted to the Court a redaction log of Blockbuster’s Board of Directors’ minutes indicating the

privilege or other protection asserted with respect to each proposed redaction. The Court has

reviewed the Board of Directors’ minutes in detail and has also reviewed each of the proposed

redactions. 

The Court agrees with the grounds asserted for all of the redactions except those set forth in

the next paragraph. Defendant has asserted that the redacted materials are not relevant to the subject

matter of this action, and also contain highly sensitive trade secrets or personal and private financial

and other information. With respect to those redactions, except as set forth in the next paragraph,

the Court agrees that the redacted material has nothing to do with this lawsuit and contains sensitive

financial information. Lastly, there are several redactions based on the assertion of the attorneyclient privilege, and the Court finds that the privilege has been properly applied and those redactions

are also appropriate, except as set forth below.

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 192 Filed 04/23/07 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

1

 In the redaction log, Defendant refers to each of its redactions by number. The Court has

adopted this nomenclature.

2

However, the following redaction numbers1 were improperly redacted. The Court finds that

the information redacted is not protected by any privilege and is reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, Defendant shall produce in unredacted form the

materials covered by the following redaction numbers: 2, 11, 24, 37, 38, 65, and 126. The Court

notes that the attorney-client privilege was improperly asserted with respect to redaction number

174. However, the information contained in that paragraph has nothing to do with this lawsuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2007 _______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 192 Filed 04/23/07 Page 2 of 2