Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01009/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01009-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BRIGHTEDGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SEARCHMETRICS GMBH., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 14-cv-01009-HSG (MEJ) 

DISCOVERY ORDER 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 169, 170 

INTRODUCTION 

Before the Court are two discovery letter briefs submitted by the parties. Having 

considered the parties’ arguments and the relevant legal authority, the Court ORDERS production 

of the 2017 version of Searchmetrics’ SugarCRM database, and all underlying documents 

referenced therein, for the following reasons. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 17, 2017, Plaintiff BrightEdge Technologies Inc. (“BrightEdge”) and 

Defendants Searchmetrics GmbH and Searchmetrics, Inc. (collectively “Searchmetrics”) filed two 

Joint Discovery Dispute Letters with the Court. In the first letter, BrightEdge requested that the 

Court compel Searchmetrics to produce “all documents concerning sales, offers to sell, and 

attempted sales of Searchmetrics’[] products and the accused products”, given the information’s 

“relevance to infringement, willfulness, and damages.” Dkt. No. 169. In the second letter, 

BrightEdge asked that the Court compel production of Searchmetrics’ SugarCRM database, as it is 

“relevant to willfulness, non-obviousness, and damages.” Dkt. No. 170. Searchmetrics asked that 

the Court deny both of BrightEdge’s requests, stating that the information sought is not relevant. 

Dkt. Nos. 169, 170. Searchmetrics also argued that the first request is “overbroad, overly 

Case 4:14-cv-01009-HSG Document 182 Filed 11/08/17 Page 1 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

burdensome, [and] violates the relevancy and proportionality requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1)”, and expressed concerns that fulfilling the second request would result in a violation of 

German privacy laws. Id. 

On October 26, 2017, the Court held a hearing regarding this discovery dispute. October 

26, 2017 Minute Entry, Dkt. No. 177. 

On November 2, 2017, the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara 

issued an order on a similar discovery dispute in the parties’ trade secrets case. BrightEdge 

Technologies, Inc. v. Gabriel Martinez, et al., Case No. 2013-1-CV-256794 (Santa Clara County 

Superior Court). The Superior Court ordered Searchmetrics to produce the 2015 version of its 

SugarCRM database, given production would be made subject to the adequately protective 

Confidentiality Order already in place in that case. 

LEGAL STANDARD

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 

party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case . . . . Information within this 

scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1). “Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable 

than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the 

action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. However, courts must limit discovery if the information sought “is 

unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). 

DISCUSSION

A. Second Letter Brief Regarding Production of the SugarCRM Database (Dkt. No. 170) 

Discovery should be allowed unless the information sought has “no conceivable bearing on 

the case.” First Fin. Sec., Inc. v. Jones, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128194, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 

2017) (citation omitted). This Court has already recognized that the requested information 

(contained in Searchmetrics’ SugarCRM database and the underlying documents referenced 

therein) is relevant to BrightEdge’s claims of willful infringement and to the calculation of 

damages in this action. Dkt. No. 56 at 5. This Court has also recognized that this information 

Case 4:14-cv-01009-HSG Document 182 Filed 11/08/17 Page 2 of 4
3 

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 Californi

a

cannot be obtained elsewhere. Id. at 7. Additionally, at the October 26th hearing, BrightEdge 

stated that it is a common industry practice to produce this kind of database in this kind of 

litigation. 

However, Searchmetrics has again asserted that transmitting the database and other related 

documents to a United States company would violate German privacy law. Dkt. No. 170 at 5; see 

also Dkt. No. 48. Searchmetrics alleges that the database and related documents contain personal 

data, which German law bars from being transferred “to countries lacking the same levels of 

protection afforded in EU countries [– countries such as] the United States.” Dkt. No. 170 at 5. 

Still, “the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that discovery should not be 

allowed, and also has the burden of clarifying, explaining[,] and supporting its objections with 

competent evidence.” La. Pac. Corp. v. Money Mkt. 1 Inst’l Inv. Dealer, 285 F.R.D. 481, 485 

(N.D. Cal. 2012) (citations omitted); see DirectTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455, 458 (C.D. Cal. 

2002); see also Oakes v. Halvorsen Mar. Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (citation 

omitted). Searchmetrics has failed to do so. Searchmetrics has twice made this general assertion, 

but has not explained why the protective order already in place in this case would not be sufficient 

to protect the private information contained in the database and related documents. 

As this Court has already stated, even where a party seeks to prevent disclosure of 

documents based on foreign law, “it is well settled that such [foreign] statutes do not deprive an 

American court of the power to order a party subject to its jurisdiction to produce evidence even 

though the act of production may violate that statute.” Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale 

v. U. S. District Court, 482 U.S. 522, 544 n. 29 (1987) (citing Societe Internationale Pour 

Participations Industrielles et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197, 204-06 (1958)). This 

Court previously ruled in favor of disclosure on a similar Joint Discovery Dispute Letter in this 

case. Dkt. No. 56. While related to a broader set of requests, the requests listed in that letter 

included one for Searchmetrics’ SugarCRM database and the related documents. Dkt. No. 48 at 2. 

In that letter, Searchmetrics similarly asserted objections to production based on German privacy 

law. However, in its order, this Court applied the relevant balancing test (set forth in Restatement 

(Third) of Foreign Relations Law section 442(1)(c) (1987) and stated in Aerospatiale, 482 U.S. at 

Case 4:14-cv-01009-HSG Document 182 Filed 11/08/17 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

544

to p

pro

sub

Sug

B. 

inf

und

Pro

firs

Ac

Sug

Da

4 n. 28 (1987

produce wha

Nothing

oduction of t

bject to the p

garCRM dat

First L

At the O

formation req

derlying doc

oceedings H

st letter wou

ccordingly, th

Therefo

garCRM dat

IT IS S

ated: Novemb

7)) and deter

at it had prev

g has change

the SugarCR

protective or

tabase and th

Letter Brief R

October 26, 

quested in th

cuments refe

eld on Octob

ld therefore 

he request is

ore, the Cour

tabase and al

SO ORDER

ber 8, 2017 

rmined that 

viously with

ed. Searchm

RM database 

der already i

he underlyin

Regarding R

2017 hearin

he first joint 

erenced there

ber 26, 2017

be duplicati

s MOOT. 

rt ORDERS

ll underlying

RED. 

4

the balance 

held on the b

metrics’ priva

and the und

in place. Th

ng document

Requests fo

g, BrightEdg

letter could 

ein. October

7, Dkt. No. 1

ve, and its d

CONCLU

S production 

g documents

___

MA

Un

weighed in f

basis of inte

acy concerns

derlying docu

herefore, the 

ts referenced

or Productio

ge’s counsel

be found in 

r 26, 2017 M

80 at 20:11-

duplicate pro

USION

n of the 2017

s referenced 

__________

ARIA-ELEN

nited States M

favor of com

ernational pri

s are address

uments refer

 Court ORD

d therein. 

on Nos. 21-2

l informed th

the SugarCR

Minute Entry

-14. The pro

oduction is u

7 version of S

therein. 

___________

NA JAMES 

Magistrate Ju

mpelling Sea

ivacy law. 

sed by the fa

renced there

DERS produ

22 (Dkt. No.

he Court tha

RM database

y; Transcript 

oduction req

unnecessary. 

Searchmetric

__________

udge 

archmetrics 

act that 

in will be 

uction of the 

. 169) 

at the 

e and the 

of 

quested in the

cs’ 

________ 

e

Case 4:14-cv-01009-HSG Document 182 Filed 11/08/17 Page 4 of 4