Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01572/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01572-13/pdf.json

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

1 06CV1572 BTM (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENS ERIK SORENSEN, as Trustee of

SORENSEN RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT TRUST,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv1572 BTM (CAB)

ORDER: 

(1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S

OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S ORDER FILED MAY 9,

2007 [Doc. #135];

and

(2) GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR

SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE

ORDER

vs.

THE BLACK & DECKER

CORPORATION, et al. ,

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Bencivengo’s May 9, 2007 order compelling the

production of all correspondence and communications with actual or potential licensees of

the ‘184 patent [Doc. #120]. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s objection is

OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s further request for a supplemental protective order is GRANTED

IN PART. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jens Erik Sorensen (SRDT) and the Black & Decker Defendants (BDC) have

been engaged in a prolonged struggle over the discovery of facts related to methodologies

Case 3:06-cv-01572-BTM-CAB Document 200 Filed 08/27/07 Page 1 of 5
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

2 06CV1572 BTM (CAB)

of valuing licenses to use the ‘184 patent. On January 11, 2007 the Magistrate Judge

entered an order compelling SRDT to produce any license agreements involving the ‘184

patent [Doc. #50]. On April 9, 2007, SRDT was further ordered to “produce non-attorney

client privileged documents describing the factual support for the terms of the executed

license agreements, specifically any documentation reflecting formulas or analysis of how

the license rate was determined.” [Doc. #81 at 2.] SRDT argues that it complied with the

April 9, 2007 order by specifying that there were no documents responsive to this order for

production outside of an agreement already produced. (Confidential Declaration of J.

Michael Kaler Re: License Formula and Calculations ¶ 9, Ex. I.) 

It is apparent from the record that neither BDC, nor the Magistrate Judge, were

satisfied with this response. On May 9, 2007 the Magistrate Judge issued an order

compelling SRDT to produce, not just the documentation referred to in the April 9, 2007

order, but also “all correspondence and communications with actual or potential licensees

of the ‘184 patent, from 1994 to the present . . . .” [Doc. #120.]

Plaintiff SRDT seeks, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), to

have the Magistrate Judge’s order reversed by this Court. Plaintiff further requests that this

Court issue a Supplemental Protective Order totally preventing the discovery of

correspondence with actual and potential licenses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(7).

DISCUSSION

I. PROPRIETY OF DISCOVERY ORDER

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), “[a] judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial

matter . . . where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or

contrary to law.” 

In support of their objection under § 636(b)(1)(A), SRDT first contends that the

Magistrate Judge erred by granting sanctions without explicitly finding SRDT in contempt.

This argument is of little merit given that the May 9, 2007 order makes no mention of

sanctions in regard to the production of correspondence and is not necessarily predicated

Case 3:06-cv-01572-BTM-CAB Document 200 Filed 08/27/07 Page 2 of 5
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

3 06CV1572 BTM (CAB)

upon a finding of contempt.

Plaintiff SRDT also contends that this correspondence has no probative value relating

to the present proceedings. It is obvious from the pretrial record that the Magistrate Judge

disagrees with SRDT’s position. When the Magistrate Judge issued her order regarding

discovery issues on January 11, 2007, she made clear her position on the relevance of

information regarding other licensees of the ‘184 patent: “The patent at issue is subject to

licenses, and Defendant is entitled to investigate the terms of those licenses.” [Doc. #50 at

1.] Again, with the April 9, 2007 order, the Magistrate Judge specified the focus of the

ordered production as “any documentation reflecting formulas or analysis of how the license

rate was determined.” [Doc. #81 at 2.]

It is also apparent from the record that, among the license agreements and

documentation that SRDT has produced, little of it has been responsive to the purpose stated

in the April 9, 2007 order. (See Confidential Declaration of J. Michael Kaler Re: License

Formula and Calculations ¶ 4-7). This Court sees no reason to disagree with the direction

and findings of the Magistrate Judge regarding the stated purpose, focus and method for

accomplishing discovery in this matter. Even if this Court were to disagree with the

Magistrate Judge’s findings regarding the propriety of the requested discovery, “under the

‘clearly erroneous and contrary to law’ standard . . . [a] reviewing court may not simply

substitute its judgement for that of the deciding court.” Grimes v. City and County of S.F.,

951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). Moreover, “[b]ecause a magistrate is afforded broad

discretion in the resolution of non-dispositive discovery disputes, the court will overrule the

magistrate’s determination only if this discretion is abused.” Comeau v. Rupp, 142 F.R.D.

683, 684-85 (D. Kan. 1992). Finding no abuse of discretion in this case, the Court declines

to overrule the Magistrate Judge’s determination.

II. ADEQUACY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER

Additionally, SRDT objects that the Magistrate Judge failed to consider the balance

of potential harms to SRDT of producing all correspondence with potential licensees against

Case 3:06-cv-01572-BTM-CAB Document 200 Filed 08/27/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4 06CV1572 BTM (CAB)

the benefit to the proceedings of this trial. Plaintiff cites Brown Bag Software v. Symantec

Corp., in which the Ninth Circuit explained:

On the one hand, parties seeking discovery are entitled to all information

“reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) - an intentionally broad mandate. On the other hand,

responding parties are entitled to protection from “undue burden” in

discovery, including protection from misuse of trade secrets by competitors.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1992). 

This Court agrees with Plaintiff’s contention that the production of correspondence

with potential licensees, under the current protective order, creates an unnecessary risk of

misuse of Plaintiff’s confidential information. Though this case involves a protective order

preventing the use of confidential documents for any purpose other than in connection with

this litigation, the production of all correspondence with potential licensees puts opposing

counsel in a position to possibly interfere with the relationships between SRDT and potential

licensees.

The protective order issued on December 12, 2006 specifically allows, under

paragraph 23, the discussion of any confidential materials with “anyone if that person already

has or obtains legitimate possession thereof.” [Doc. # 43.] Thus, the protective order could

be construed as allowing BDC to make contact with potential licensees of the ‘184 patent and

discuss the terms of their license negotiations with SRDT. This potential is unduly prejudicial

toward SRDT’s business interests and is unrelated to the litigation between SRDT and BDC.

Furthermore, in Black & Decker’s Confidential Opposition, it specifically lists the

disputed production as likely to “identify the availability of non-infringing alternative processes

. . . .” [Doc. #167 at 1.] Though this is very likely to be in the interest of BDC, the purpose

of this litigation is not to enable BDC to out-maneuver the patent possessed by SRDT. Such

illegitimate use of discovery responses, particularly confidential correspondence, would be

in violation of the protective order already submitted to by both parties.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(7) allows a court to make an order to protect

confidential information in order to ensure that it not be revealed except in the manner

Case 3:06-cv-01572-BTM-CAB Document 200 Filed 08/27/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5 06CV1572 BTM (CAB)

designated by the court. The Court finds that it will be necessary to enlarge the protections

outlined in the current protective order in order to adequately protect Plaintiff from any

disclosure of highly sensitive information to third parties. However, Plaintiff’s requested

protection, prohibiting the discovery of any and all correspondence with licensees and

potential licensees, is too broad to be construed as necessary. Additionally, such broad

protection would necessarily frustrate the purposes of discovery established by the

Magistrate Judge’s orders as discussed above.

In light of this, the Court enters the following protective order. All information

produced in response to the Magistrate Judge’s May 9, 2007 order shall not be shared or

discussed with anyone outside of the parties to this litigation, designated counsel, and any

retained experts on the issue of license/royalty fees, who shall be bound by these same

protections. It is not permissible for BDC, or any agent of BDC, to contact anyone outside

of the parties to this litigation regarding or in response to any of the information produced.

No other use of the produced information is permitted without express prior approval from

this Court. Defendants and their counsel may apply to the Court for a modification of this

order. BDC and its counsel shall take all necessary steps to ensure full compliance with this

order.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, in accordance with the foregoing reasoning, Plaintiff’s objection is

OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s further request for a supplementary protective order is GRANTED

IN PART, according to the terms set forth above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 27, 2007

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01572-BTM-CAB Document 200 Filed 08/27/07 Page 5 of 5