Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00880/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00880-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

ORDER ON ECF No. 125 – 14-880 LB

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 Francisco Division

STELLA SYSTEMS, LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MEDEANALYTICS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-00880-LB 

ORDER ON DISCOVERY LETTER

Re: ECF No. 125

STATEMENT

Defendant MedeAnalytics, Inc. (―Mede‖) seeks the production of information from, and has 

propounded interrogatories to, plaintiff Stella Systems, LLC, concerning various aspects of 

Stella’s relationships with its employees. The requested information is relevant to several issues in 

this case: for example, to Stella’s claim that Mede ―poached‖ its employees, and to Mede’s 

counterclaim that Stella ―did not comply‖ with its contractual obligation to safeguard Mede’s 

confidential information. (See ECF No. 125 at 3.)1The relevant discovery requests are reproduced 

at ECF No. 125 at 8-10.

Stella replies that producing this information, and answering the interrogatories, would cause it 

to violate Ukrainian privacy law. (Id. at 4.) Stella has not elaborated this response. It does not cite, 

 

1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (―ECF‖); pinpoint citations are to the 

ECF-generated page numbers at the tops of the documents.

Case 3:14-cv-00880-LB Document 130 Filed 02/25/15 Page 1 of 3
ORDER ON ECF No. 125 – 14-880 LB 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

describe, or offer precedent applying the Ukrainian privacy law in question. Stella says only that, 

―[i]t is Stella’s understanding based on the advice of its Ukrainian counsel‖ that all the material 

that Mede seeks is ―protected from disclosure by Ukrainian law.‖ (ECF No. 125 at 4.) Further, 

―Stella’s Ukrainian counsel opines that this stricture would apply to all of the documents and 

information sought by Mede in the discovery requests at issue.‖ (Id.)

This is the only issue joined. Stella’s discovery responses contain the usual generic statements 

that the information sought is, for example, overbroad and not calculated to lead to discovering 

admissible evidence (see ECF No. 125 at 8-10), but the parties have not briefed those issues. The 

only point of contention between them — at least within their current discovery letter — involves 

whether Ukrainian privacy law can be invoked to shield the requested information from discovery.

The court determines that this matter is suitable for determination without oral argument. See

Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

ANALYSIS

This case is effectively indistinguishable from BrightEdge Techs., Inc. v. Searchmetrics 

GmbH., 2014 WL 3965062 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2014). That case states well the governing law, 

including the multifactorial analysis described by Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. 

U.S. District Court, 482 U.S. 522 (1987) and Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 

F.2d 1468 (9th Cir.1992). The court adopts BrightEdge’s statement of the governing legal 

standard. See BrightEdge, 2014 WL 3965062 at *2-*6. Though the full rule is neither simple nor 

absolute, the Supreme Court has explained that foreign privacy laws do not automatically exempt 

information from discovery in United States courts: ―[I]t 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.‖ Aerospatiale, 482 

U.S. at 544 n. 29. That broad root principle is then elaborated into the Aerospatiale–Richmark test 

that BrightEdge lays out. See BrightEdge, 2014 WL 3965062 at *2-*6.

Only one factual difference between this case and BrightEdge stands out. The information at 

issue in BrightEdge seems to have been at least partly ―already available and in use in the U.S.‖ 

when the BrightEdge plaintiff sought it through discovery from the German defendant. See id. at 

Case 3:14-cv-00880-LB Document 130 Filed 02/25/15 Page 2 of 3
ORDER ON ECF No. 125 – 14-880 LB 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

*2. Nothing in this case suggests that the information that Mede requests is maintained in the 

United States. This lone fact does not change the usefulness of BrightEdge for this case. It does 

not affect this court’s assessment of the governing law, its application to this case, or the ultimate 

result.

The court finds Mede’s application of the Aerospatiale–Richmark factors on all points 

convincing. (See ECF No. 125 at 1-3.) The court has considered the requested information, the 

parties’ respective positions, and the governing law, and holds that Stella must produce to Mede 

the discovery in question. (See ECF No. 125 at 7-10.)

CONCLUSION

Under the legal standard described in Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. 

District Court, 482 U.S. 522 (1987) and Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 

1468 (9th Cir.1992), and for the reasons set out at (ECF No. 125 at 1-3), the court orders Stella to 

fulfill all the discovery requests reproduced at (ECF No. 125 at 8-10). Consistent with Mede’s 

proposed compromise resolution of this dispute (id. at 4), all responsive information will be 

provided on an ―Attorney Eyes’ Only‖ basis, its distribution to be limited to the greatest extent 

possible that is consistent with conducting this litigation.

This disposes of ECF No. 125.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2015

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00880-LB Document 130 Filed 02/25/15 Page 3 of 3