Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-00404/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-00404-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(b) - Civil Action to Protect Trade Secrets

---

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

ALTA DEVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.18-cv-00404-LHK (VKD)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE

DEFENDANT’S INTERROGATORIES 

AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Re: Dkt. No. 105

Defendant LG Electronics, Inc. (“LGE”) seeks an order compelling plaintiff Alta Devices, 

Inc. (“Alta”) to respond to or produce further discovery in response to LGE’s interrogatories and 

requests for production. The Court heard oral argument on June 4, 2019. Dkt. No. 115. For the 

reasons stated on the record and as further explained below, the Court orders as follows:

A. Interrogatory No. 2 and Requests for Production Nos. 3 and 9

These requests seek information regarding Alta’s creation and use of Alta’s alleged trade 

secrets. LGE argues that this discovery is relevant, notwithstanding the dismissal of Alta’s claims 

for trade secret misappropriation, because Alta reportedly claims that information it disclosed 

under the parties’ 2011 Nondisclosure Agreement (“NDA”) comprises both Alta’s alleged trade 

secret and other proprietary “Confidential Information.” LGE contends that it is entitled to know 

whether Alta used its alleged trade secrets in a way that may have compromised the claimed 

confidentiality of the information. Because this case now concerns LGE’s alleged breach of 

contract, Alta contends that the requested information is irrelevant. Additionally, Alta argues that 

these requests impose an undue burden because they essentially seek information about everything 

Alta has done in the history of the company to develop or use the alleged trade secrets. In any 

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 119 Filed 06/05/19 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 California

event, Alta contends that it should not be required to answer Interrogatory No. 2, because 

answering that interrogatory, including subparts, for each of Alta’s claimed trade secrets, will 

cause LGE to exceed the 30-interrogatory limit set by the Court.

Alta’s remaining claim for breach of the 2011 NDA is based on the theory that LGE used 

Alta’s “Confidential Information” for purposes not permitted by that agreement. See, e.g., Dkt. 

No. 55 at 22. LGE says it requires this discovery to assess whether Alta’s alleged trade secrets are 

proprietary to Alta and whether they are not publicly known. Dkt. No. 104-3 at 2. The Court 

disagrees with Alta that the number of trade secrets Alta has identified requires the Court to 

multiply by that number for every interrogatory seeking information “for each trade secret.” 

However, the Court agrees with Alta that, as drafted, these discovery requests are overbroad to the 

extent they seek a detailed description of the creation and use of each alleged trade secret and all 

documents “relating to” their creation and use. The Court will not order Alta to respond to or 

produce documents in response to Interrogatory No. 2 and Requests for Production Nos. 3 and 9. 

Instead, the Court will require Alta to provide a narrower scope of information and documents, as 

follows:

• For each alleged trade secret that Alta contends constitutes “Confidential Information,” 

Alta shall identify all persons who participated substantively in the development of the 

trade secret. 

• For each alleged trade secret, Alta shall explain the bases for its contention that the

trade secret satisfies the definition of “Confidential Information” in the 2011 NDA and 

is not publicly known.

• For each alleged trade secret, Alta shall identify the products or processes that use or 

have used the alleged trade secret.

• For each alleged trade secret, Alta shall produce documents sufficient to show the 

development of the trade secret, including any advances or improvements over known 

technology.1

 

1 During the hearing on this motion, Alta’s counsel referred to documents that reflect the 

company’s “starting point” for developing the technology, as well as documents described as 

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 119 Filed 06/05/19 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 California

• For each alleged trade secret, Alta shall produce documents sufficient to show the 

products or processes that use or have used the trade secret.

B. Interrogatory No. 14 and Request for Production No. 29

LGE seeks discovery regarding discussions, proposals, or offers between Alta and third 

parties concerning contemplated investments in, acquisitions of, or joint ventures with Alta. LGE 

argues that this information is relevant to show whether any of Alta’s interactions with third 

parties may have occurred under circumstances that did not maintain the confidentiality of the 

information, or whether others may have already known about what Alta claims is its confidential 

technology. Additionally, LGE argues that this discovery is relevant to the valuation of the 

technology. Alta claims that the parties initially agreed that Alta need only produce discovery 

concerning a Series D round of financing for a four-year period beginning in January 2011, but 

that LGE later changed its mind and now seeks discovery concerning an earlier (and, in Alta’s 

view, irrelevant) Series C round of financing that reportedly occurred mainly in 2010.

At the hearing, LGE argued that the earlier information re the Series C financing is 

relevant to valuation of the “Confidential Information” at issue, and that LGE seeks information 

predating the 2011 NDA by only 6 months in addition to information about the Series D financing. 

Alta maintains that the Series C financing concerned technology at a different stage of 

development than the technology disclosed by Alta to LGE, and is therefore not relevant to either

valuation or disclosure of the “Confidential Information” at issue.

The Court agrees with Alta that discussions, proposals, and offers pre-dating the disclosure 

of “Confidential Information” by Alta to LGE are unlikely to bear directly on valuation or 

disclosure of the “Confidential Information” at issue here. Alta need only provide responsive 

information and documents relating to the Series D financing.

C. Request for Production No. 36

LGE asks for “[a]ll efficiency testing results for Alta’s GaAS solar cell technology.” Dkt. 

No. 105-2 at ECF 5. However, what LGE really wants is “process yield” information (i.e., 

 

reports to the company’s board on the progress of development of the technology. 

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 119 Filed 06/05/19 Page 3 of 4
4

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

information showing how many devices actually work) for the period of time from 2011 to 2017 

because LGE wants to test Alta’s contention that its technology was ever commercially viable.

Alta argues that Request for Production No. 36 does not ask for yield data; that, during the NDA 

disclosure period, Alta did not disclose such information; and that Alta has already agreed to 

produce median and maximum efficiency data for 2011 to 2017 as that information is kept in the 

ordinary course of its business.

The Court will not require Alta to produce “yield data,” as that data is not called for in 

LGE’s request. However, it is not clear whether Alta maintains “efficiency testing” data, in a 

database or other format, that it has not yet produced and that would be responsive to this request. 

Accordingly, the Court directs counsel for Alta to investigate whether additional efficiency testing 

data exists and to so inform counsel for LGE. If the data does exist, the parties should confer 

regarding whether and how such data may be made available to LGE’s counsel and/or experts for 

inspection. If the parties dispute whether and how such data should be produced, they shall 

submit a further joint discovery dispute letter on this topic to the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 119 Filed 06/05/19 Page 4 of 4