Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01370/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01370-27/pdf.json

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SUMOTEXT CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZOOVE, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01370-BLF 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO LIFT 

PROTECTIVE ORDER AS TO

DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS

[ECF 430]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to lift the protective order as to all deposition 

transcripts that were previously designated Attorneys’ Eyes Only (“AEO”) under the Protective 

Order in this case, ECF 205. See ECF 430 at 2. Specifically, Plaintiff says that it “intends to use 

deposition testimony to impeach testimony and refresh the memories of witnesses as necessary at 

trial.” Id. Because Defendants did not file a motion to seal any deposition transcripts, Plaintiff

believes that Defendants “may no longer maintain their formal or informal AEO designations on 

transcripts.” Id. Plaintiff also alleges that many depositions were “never formally designated” as 

AEO under the procedures outlined by the Protective Order. Id. 

First, as to Plaintiff’s contention that Defendants failed to properly designate the transcripts 

as AEO, Plaintiff has not provided any evidence thereof. Meanwhile, Defendants have attached 

several deposition cover pages demonstrating compliance at least with the requirement that 

“Transcripts containing Protected Material shall have an obvious legend on the title page that the 

transcript contains Protected Material.” ECF 205 at 4; see ECF 434-5. Consequently, the Court is 

unable to provide “confirmation that the materials are not properly designated and may be viewed 

by Mr. Miller.” ECF 430 at 2. 

Turning to Plaintiff’s request to de-designate AEO material, the Protective Order lays out 

the process for challenging confidentiality designations. Pursuant to that process, the parties must 

Case 5:16-cv-01370-BLF Document 439 Filed 02/20/20 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

“provid[e] written notice of each designation it is challenging and describing the basis for each 

challenge.” ECF 205 ¶ 6.2. The parties are then required to meet and confer “in good faith” 

regarding the dispute. Id. In conferring, “the Challenging Party must explain the basis for its belief 

that the confidentiality designation was not proper and must give the Designating Party an 

opportunity to review the designated material, to reconsider the circumstances, and if no change in 

designation is offered, to explain the basis for the chosen designation.” Id. The Challenging Party 

may seek judicial intervention only if it has first engaged in the meet and confer process or 

established that “the Designating Party is unwilling to participate in the meet and confer process in 

a timely manner.” Id. ¶ 6.3. Plaintiff says the latter condition is present here: According to Plaintiff, 

it requested that Defendants review the deposition transcripts and indicate which testimony should 

remain protected at trial, but Defendants refused to do so. ECF 430 at 2. Specifically, Plaintiff’s 

counsel attests that they “emailed with David Bloch, counsel for Defendants Zoove, Inc., Virtual 

Hold Technology, LLC, and VHT StarStar, LLC on Monday, February 10, 2020 and spoke again 

by phone on Tuesday, February 11, 2020.” ECF 430-1 ¶ 5. Defendants respond that “Sumotext 

has not identified any specific sequences [of AEO testimony] that it wishes to use for crossexamination or other purposes” in the course of this dispute or its pre-trial deposition designations, 

ECF 393. ECF 434 at 2. As a result, Defendants say, it is Plaintiff who has failed to comply with 

the challenge process in the Protective Order. Id. at 4. 

The Court will not lift the protective order as to all deposition transcripts. In the Court’s 

view, the parties have not engaged in a good faith meet and confer; consequently, the instant dispute 

is not ripe for the Court’s intervention. The Court agrees with Defendants that, as the party 

challenging the designations, Plaintiff is required to identify with reasonable specificity the portions 

of AEO testimony that it believes Mr. Miller needs to review “to prepare for trial.” At that point, 

the “burden of persuasion” to establish good cause for continued protection rests with Defendants, 

the Designating Parties. See ECF 205 ¶ 6.3; In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in 

Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011). As it stands, there is no record upon which the Court 

can “examine factually all the risks and safeguards surrounding inadvertent disclosure” of the 

relevant testimony, as well as the impact of continued protection upon Plaintiff’s “due process 

Case 5:16-cv-01370-BLF Document 439 Filed 02/20/20 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

right[] . . . to prosecute its claims.” Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 

(9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff’s motion is therefore DENIED. 

The Court notes, however, that the AEO designation does not limit what Plaintiff may 

introduce at trial for impeachment or any other valid evidentiary purpose. See ECF 205 ¶ 3 (“Any 

use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by a separate agreement or order.”). As with the 

trial exhibits, Defendants must move to seal any portions of deposition testimony that they do not 

want disclosed at trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2020

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-01370-BLF Document 439 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 3