Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01370/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01370-9/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BLADEROOM GROUP LIMITED, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.5:15-cv-01370-EJD (HRL)

**REDACTED**

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

REPORT NO. 8

Re: Dkt. No. 180

In Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) #8 defendants Emerson Electric Co., Emerson 

Network Power Solutions, Inc., and Liebert Corporation (collectively, the “Emerson defendants”) 

seek an order compelling plaintiffs to provide further detail about their allegedly misappropriated 

trade secrets (Interrogatory #1) and also to separately identify any claimed misconduct by each of 

the Emerson defendants instead of lumping them together collectively (Interrogatories #1-11). 

Plaintiffs oppose both requests.

Interrogatory #1

Interrogatory #1 says: “Identify all trade secrets you allege that you disclosed to [each of 

the Emerson defendants].”

The Emerson defendants say that plaintiffs simply have not revealed enough about their 

claimed trade secrets to enable them to know what they are defending against. Nonsense, say 

plaintiffs. We disclosed them either in our Disclosure of Plaintiffs’ Trade Secrets under California 

Case 5:15-cv-01370-EJD Document 225 Filed 03/13/17 Page 1 of 3
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 California

Code of Civil Procedure § 2019.210 (“Disclosures”) or in various documents we identified in our 

response to Interrogatory #1. In rejoinder, the Emerson defendants contend, in effect, that the 

Disclosures are long on generalities and short on specifics.

Plaintiffs’ first argument is that, if the Emerson defendants wanted more specificity in the 

Disclosures, they should have moved for an order to supplement them. Since they have not done 

so, they have “waived” (plaintiffs’ word) the contention that the disclosure is inadequate. 

Plaintiffs cite no authority for this rather curious proposition, and the court sees nothing wrong 

with using discovery (Interrogatory #1) to get more specificity. Indeed, discovery was exactly the 

right way to go about probing the facts and, perhaps, exposing the weaknesses of an opposing 

party’s claims. The court rejects plaintiffs’ argument.

Equally troubling is the plaintiffs’ assertion that Interrogatory #1 only asked that their trade 

secrets be “identif[ied],” and that they had already done that in their Disclosures. Plaintiffs say 

that if the Emerson defendants had wanted something more than the identity of the trade secrets, 

they should have propounded an interrogatory that pointedly asked for specifics, and plaintiffs

would have been happy to comply. Here, plaintiffs are exalting form over substance. Obviously, 

defendants wanted specifics, or why bother to propound the interrogatory at all? Furthermore, the 

Disclosures did not, in this court’s view, for the most part adequately “identify” the trade secrets

with the “reasonable particularity” that Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2019.210 requires. And, since 

plaintiffs tell the court that they would have fleshed out their Disclosures if the Emerson 

defendants had only asked the right question, they should have no problem doing that now that the 

court has clarified the question for them.

REDACTED

Case 5:15-cv-01370-EJD Document 225 Filed 03/13/17 Page 2 of 3
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 California

REDACTED

In short, the court is persuaded that plaintiffs owe the Emerson defendants a supplemental 

response to Interrogatory #1 that addresses all the claimed trade secrets as to the shortcomings the 

court has described by example above.

Interrogatories #1-11

The Emerson defendants are three separate, presumably related, entities. In Interrogatories 

#1-11 each asked plaintiffs to state (individually), which entity received what secret, which entity 

misappropriated what secret, which caused damages, and so on. Plaintiffs responded by providing 

identical answers for each entity and made no attempt to separate out who did what. Plaintiffs 

explained they would need further discovery to figure that out and offered to supplement their 

responses later. That was months ago. “Later” is now. Plaintiffs shall now respond separately 

and particularly to each of the three Emerson defendants.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs will submit supplemental interrogatory responses within 14 days from the filing 

of this order.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2017

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01370-EJD Document 225 Filed 03/13/17 Page 3 of 3