Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05214/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05214-4/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CYBERGUARD CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SERVGATE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C04-05214 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING (AS MODIFIED)

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ENTRY

OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER

[Re: Docket No. 145]

This is an action for breach of contract based on diversity jurisdiction. Defendant Servgate

Technologies, Inc. (“Servgate”) moves for entry of a protective order. Plaintiff Cyberguard

Corporation (“Cyberguard”) opposed the motion. Servgate voluntarily waived a reply. This court

finds the matter suitable for determination without oral argument. CIV. L.R. 7-1(b). Having

considered the papers submitted by the parties, the court issues the following order.

Preliminarily, the court notes that there are no specific documents before it on the instant

motion. The only dispute is whether certain terms should be included in a blanket protective order. 

The parties have negotiated and agreed to most of the terms of a protective order containing two tiers

of confidentiality: (1) “Confidential” and (2) “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” However,

they have been unable to agree on certain provisions that Cyberguard says should be included. 

Specifically, Cyberguard argues that:

Case 5:04-cv-05214-JF Document 173 Filed 09/29/05 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

(1) Court reporters should not be permitted to retain copies of “Highly Confidential –

Attorneys’ Eyes Only” documents after any deposition;

(2) The parties should be precluded from disclosing “Highly Confidential – Attorney’s

Eyes Only” information to outside copy services;

(3) The parties should be precluded from disclosing any “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’

Eyes Only” information to outside graphic vendors unless the court has ruled that the

documents are admissible at trial;

(4) The parties should be required to obtain a court order before offering into evidence

any “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” at trial or before seeking to use such

material in any court proceeding; and

(5) The parties should be able to object to the production of any trade secret information,

notwithstanding the entry of any blanket protective order.

Upon a showing of “good cause,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) authorizes courts to “protect a party

or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” in discovery by

ordering “that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information

not be revealed or be revealed only in a designated way . . ..” See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(7). The

party seeking a protective order has the burden of showing that the protection is warranted under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(c).

Court reporters and professional vendors (i.e., graphics and copy services) should be

permitted sufficient access to “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” material as may be

necessary for this litigation – i.e., to record proceedings, mark exhibits, prepare transcripts, and to

assist the parties in preparing for trial or other court proceedings. To ensure their compliance with the

terms of the protective order, the court will modify Servgate’s proposed protective order to require

that these individuals/entities sign the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” by the

protective order. Cyberguard does not adequately explain why disclosure to graphics vendors should

be tied to a court ruling that a particular document is admissible at trial, or how such a procedure

would be feasible for pre-trial proceedings. It may be that the sensitivity or confidentiality of particular

documents might warrant greater protection – for example, that they be copied only in-house. As

Case 5:04-cv-05214-JF Document 173 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

noted above, however, there are no specific documents at issue before the court on this motion, and

the court declines to rule in a vacuum as to whether such measures are necessary. In any event,

nothing in Servgate’s proposed protective order precludes Cyberguard from seeking a modification of

the protective order to provide other or greater protection for particular documents upon a showing

that such protection is warranted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). (See Mot., Ex. A (Servgate’s Proposed

Protective Order, ¶ 12.1)).

Cyberguard’s request for a provision requiring a court order before any party may offer

“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” materials into evidence or use them in a court

proceeding is denied. This court finds that such a requirement would be unduly cumbersome. If a

party plans to file such documents with the court, Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets out procedures to have

such information filed under seal. To the extent a party plans to reference such information in any

court hearing, the parties and the court will take reasonable steps to ensure that confidential

information is not publicly disclosed. Any procedures for handling such information at trial shall be left

to the discretion of the District Court.

Finally, Cyberguard argues that it should be permitted to object to the production of any

documents on the ground that they comprise trade secrets. It asserts that Servgate has requested

certain trade secret information which is wholly irrelevant and unnecessary in this action. It further

contends that even if its trade secret information is relevant, the court must nevertheless balance

defendant’s need for the information against the potential harm of disclosure. The very purpose of a

protective order, however, is to address any harm of disclosure by limiting the dissemination and use

of such information in this action. In any event, Servgate’s proposed protective order does not

preclude Cyberguard from objecting to the disclosure of such information on the grounds that it is

unnecessary or irrelevant. (See Mot., Ex. A (Servgate’s Proposed Protective Order, ¶ 12.2)).

Based on the foregoing, this court will enter Servgate’s proposed protective order in this

action (with some grammatical and other modifications deemed appropriate by the court). The

presumptive motion hearing set for October 4, 2005, 10:00 a.m. is VACATED.

Case 5:04-cv-05214-JF Document 173 Filed 09/29/05 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-05214-JF Document 173 Filed 09/29/05 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

:5:04-cv-5214 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Christopher Charles Cooke ccooke@ckwlaw.com 

Christine Kerba Corbett christine.corbett@dlapiper.com, carmen.manzano@dlapiper.com 

William J. Frimel bill.frimel@dlapiper.com, carmen.manzano@dlapiper.com 

Irwin R Gilbert igilbert@bizlit.net, tbowersock@bizlit.net 

Jeffrey W. Kobrick jkobrick@ckwlaw.com, jkobrick@jps.net 

Stephen S. Wu swu@ckwlaw.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 5:04-cv-05214-JF Document 173 Filed 09/29/05 Page 5 of 5