Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-00295/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-00295-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

For the Northern District of California 

** E-filed May 11, 2010 ** 

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

KATHERINE E. DECKER, individually and 

on behalf of all other similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, 

 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________/

No. C09-00295 JW (HRL) 

ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF 

PROTECTIVE ORDER AND (2) 

ENTERING HP’S PROPOSED 

PROTECTIVE ORDER AS AMENDED 

BY THE COURT 

[Re: Docket No. 40] 

Katherine Decker sued Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) on behalf of herself and a putative 

class of consumers, alleging that HP sold laptop computers with defective wireless devices. The 

parties wish to enter a Stipulated Protective Order, but have been unable to agree on its provisions 

after several meet-and-confer efforts. Decker now moves for entry of her proposed version, while 

HP seeks entry of its version. Upon consideration of the motion papers and the arguments presented 

at the hearing, the court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion. 

Although the parties’ motion papers discuss their earlier proposals and disputes to the same, 

none of those issues are before the court today. Instead, the only issue is whether the court should 

enter a protective order that prohibits plaintiff from disclosing HP’s “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” information to a consultant or expert witness who, within the past 

five years, was an employee of HP, was an employee of a competitor of HP, or worked as a 

consultant or expert witness for any HP competitor. This provision appears in HP’s version of the 

Case 5:09-cv-00295-JW Document 52 Filed 05/11/10 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

For the Northern District of California 

protective order, but does not appear in plaintiff’s version. In addition, HP proposes a list of nine 

competitors to which this provision applies, along with a “catch-all” definition: “Any other entity 

engaged in the design, creation, manufacturing, or marketing of computers and its subsidiaries, 

affiliates, and/or divisions.” (HP’s Proposed Order Ex. B.) 

HP alleges that this provision is necessary to protect its proprietary technical and financial 

information. It argues that its proposal is reasonable because, it says, this court entered the same 

provision in a similar case. See Nygren v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 07-05793 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 

2008) (order on HP’s motion for a notice requirement). Decker counters that in Nygren, this court 

merely adopted the plaintiffs’ proposal, and that she should not be held to any agreement made by 

the Nygren plaintiffs in any case. Moreover, she argues that HP’s “catch-all” definition 

impermissibly broadens the scope of this court’s order in Nygren, which did not define HP’s 

competitors at all. 

As in Nygren, the court finds good cause to provide HP with some additional protection for 

its legitimate trade secrets. But it also finds that HP’s “catch-all” definition goes too far and is 

unnecessary in a consumer case where the plaintiff is not HP’s competitor. Accordingly, the court 

DENIES plaintiff’s motion for entry of her version of the protective order. Instead, within five days 

of this order, the parties shall submit to the court HP’s version with Exhibit B amended to include 

the following nine competitors (including their subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or divisions): Dell, Inc.; 

Acer Group; Alienware Computers; Gateway; Toshiba Worldwide, Inc.; Sony Electronics, Inc.; 

Samsung; Apple, Inc.; and ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. In addition, Exhibit B shall include “any 

other entity engaged in the design, creation, manufacturing, or marketing of computers and its 

subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or divisions that represents itself or is acknowledged in the industry as a 

competitor of HP.” 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 11, 2010 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:09-cv-00295-JW Document 52 Filed 05/11/10 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

For the Northern District of California 

C 09-00295 JW (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Daniel Emmett McGuire dmcguire@morganlewis.com 

Franco A Corrado fcorrado@morganlewis.com 

James C. Sturdevant jsturdevant@sturdevantlaw.com, arocha@sturdevantlaw.com, 

 bnuss@sturdevantlaw.com, kbecker@sturdevantlaw.com 

John Watson Crongeyer jwc@birdlawgroup.com, ecn@birdlawgroup.com 

Kristofor Tod Henning khenning@morganlewis.com 

Meredith Ann Galto mgalto@morganlewis.com 

Monique Olivier molivier@sturdevantlaw.com, arocha@sturdevantlaw.com, 

 bnuss@sturdevantlaw.com, kbecker@sturdevantlaw.com 

Robert A. Particelli rparticelli@morganlewis.com 

Whitney Huston whuston@sturdevantlaw.com, arocha@sturdevantlaw.com, 

 kbecker@sturdevantlaw.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not 

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 

 

Case 5:09-cv-00295-JW Document 52 Filed 05/11/10 Page 3 of 3