Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05248/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05248-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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.

The court takes no position on whether CCP § 2019.210 applies in federal court. The 2

court’s order requiring such disclosure is essentially a protective order. Under F.R.C.P. 26(c) and the

inherent discretion of a court to manage its own discovery, a court may sua sponte issue a protective

order. See, e.g., Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, 2007 WL 4276554, *1 (N.D.Cal. 2007); see also

Campbell Indus. v. M/V Gemini, 619 F.2d 24, 27 (9 Cir.1980) (district courts have “broad discretion th

to make discovery . . . . and evidentiary rulings conducive to the conduct of a fair and orderly trial”).

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADVANCED MICRO-FABRICATION

EQUIPMENT (SHANGHAI) CO., LTD., et

al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 07-5248 JW (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

On December 14, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of a confidentiality order.

1

Defendants opposed the motion. Having reviewed the papers submitted by the parties, the court

finds it appropriate to issue this order without oral argument. Based on the moving, opposition and

reply papers submitted,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. 

The court imposed the requirement that Plaintiff disclose to Defendants all trade secrets it is

alleging have been misappropriated solely as a matter of case management in order to: 1) assist both 2

Case 5:07-cv-05248-JW Document 91 Filed 01/18/08 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

In this latter regard, this trade secret disclosure requirement protects both parties. It 3

protects Defendant from the possibility of Plaintiff engaging in a fishing expedition. It also protects

Plaintiff from claims that Plaintiff did not know a particular trade secret until discovering it from

Defendant.

The parties also appear to dispute the adequacy of Plaintiff’s trade secret disclosure, 4

however the question of whether Plaintiff’s trade secret disclosure is sufficiently specific is not properly

before the court at this time. That question may be brought before the court in either a motion by

Defendant(s) to compel a more specific disclosure, or a motion by Plaintiff to confirm its compliance

with the disclosure requirement imposed by the court. 

ORDER, page 2

the parties and the court in determining the appropriate scope of discovery and in determining

whether particular discovery requests fall within that scope; and 2) avoid any disputes regarding

whether or not Plaintiff is using the discovery process as a means to obtain the Defendant’s trade

secrets. See, e.g., Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group Inc., 50 F.Supp.2d 980, 985 (S.D. 3

Cal. l999) (discussing the rationale underlying CCP § 2019.210 (which at the time was numbered

2019(d)).

In light of the purposes of this court’s order requiring Plaintiff to disclose the trade secrets it

alleges were misappropriated, Plaintiff’s proposed form of order is sufficient at this juncture. The

question of which of Defendants’ employees may ultimately see Plaintiff’s trade secret list is not yet

ripe. As the parties determine–through formal or informal discovery–which of Plaintiff’s former

employees may have had access to some or all of the trade secrets, the parties may seek modification

of the Confidentiality Order to allow disclosure to those individuals if warranted.4

Dated: 1/18/08

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:07-cv-05248-JW Document 91 Filed 01/18/08 Page 2 of 2