Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06637/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06637-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

1

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CARDONET, INC., 

Plaintiff,

v.

IBM CORPORATION,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-6637 RMW (PVT)

AMENDED ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR

HEARING MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER

On November 15, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to shorten time for hearing on a motion for

protective order. Having reviewed the papers submitted by Plaintiff, the court finds it appropriate to 1

issue this order without further briefing. Based on the brief presented,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to shorten time is DENIED. Plaintiff has

not made any pertinent showing why it could not have sought protection sooner, nor any nonspeculative showing of substantial harm or prejudice if the motion is not heard on shortened time.

Plaintiff notes that it did not know until November 9, 2007 that defense counsel had

contacted Mr. Stegina to set up an informal interview. However, the relevant time frame is how long

Plaintiff has known that Mr. Stegina could be contacted by defense counsel. Plaintiff does not state

Case 5:06-cv-06637-RMW Document 63 Filed 11/26/07 Page 1 of 2
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 As Plaintiff’s “point person” for communicating with counsel, Mr. Stegina presumably 2

knew what information Plaintiff intended to keep confidential at the time of his communications with

counsel.

ORDER, page 2

when Mr. Stegina left its employ. There was no requirement for either Mr. Stegina or defense

counsel to inform Plaintiff of the planned interview. Thus, the time for Plaintiff to make a

determination of whether it needed to seek a protective order was when Mr. Stegina left Plaintiff’s

employ or when this lawsuit was filed, whichever occurred later. 

Plaintiff’s showing of potential harm amounts to nothing more than counsel’s speculation

that Mr. Stegina, a senior business executive whom Plaintiff deemed its “point person

communicating with Cardonet’s legal counsel on a regular basis,” might not understand what

information communicated between Cardonet and its counsel was intended to be maintained in

confidence. Plaintiff fails to show any factual basis for finding Mr. Stegina lacks such

understanding.2

Finally, the concerns raised in Plaintiff’s motion will be addressed in connection with

Defendant’s motion for protection. The court’s request that Plaintiff explain its failure to seek a

protective order was not an invitation to do so. It was instead intended to give Plaintiff an

opportunity to explain why, if it thinks protection is warranted, it did not timely seek such protection

after Mr. Stegina left its employ.

Dated: 11/20/07

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-06637-RMW Document 63 Filed 11/26/07 Page 2 of 2