Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04238/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04238-3/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

EUREKA DIVISION

PROOFPOINT, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VADE SECURE, INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-04238-MMC (RMI)

ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 78, 91, 92, 93

Now pending before the court are a series of discovery disputes presented through three 

jointly filed letter briefs (dkts. 91, 92, 93). Previously, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel (dkt. 

78) production of documents and interrogatory responses which had been the subject of an 

objection by Defendants based on French law; thereafter, the matter was referred to the 

undersigned and the Parties were instructed to proceed by letter brief (dkt. 79). As described 

below, and for the reasons stated on the record, the relief sought in the motion to compel and the

three letters briefs is granted in part and denied in part.

In the first letter brief (dkt. 91), Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Defendants to produce 

documents that are responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests, as well as to provide substantive responses to 

Plaintiffs’ interrogatories. Id. at 2, 3-5. Defendants had objected to tendering this information, 

arguing that for information originating in France, a provision of French law prohibits the 

communication of any economic, industrial, financial, or technical information for use in foreign 

judicial proceedings, subject to treaties or international agreements governing the procedures for 

the exchange of such information for use in non-French court proceedings. Id. at 5-7.

Comity and foreign law, by themselves, are not dispositive whenever a discovery dispute 

Case 3:19-cv-04238-MMC Document 112 Filed 01/31/20 Page 1 of 5
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

may arise in relation to documents sought in a United States court which might be subject to 

protection by foreign law. See Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et 

Commerciales v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197, 208 (1958); see also Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling 

Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1474-75 (9th Cir. 1992). Instead, courts are directed to consider a 

number of factors in determining whether or not a foreign law may operate to excuse 

noncompliance with the discovery orders of a court of the United States. See generally Societe 

Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United States Dist. Court for S. Dist., 482 U.S. 522 (1987). 

Those factors include: (1) the importance of the documents or other information requested to the 

litigation; (2) the degree of specificity of the request; (3) whether or not the information originated 

in the United States; (4) the availability of alternative means of securing the information; and (5) 

the extent to which noncompliance with the request would undermine important interests of the 

United States, or the extent to which compliance with the request would undermine important 

interests of the state where the information is located. Id. at 544 n.28. The Aerospatiale list is not 

exhaustive, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has also considered “the extent and the 

nature of the hardship that inconsistent enforcement would impose upon the person . . . [and] the 

extent to which enforcement by action of either state can reasonably be expected to achieve 

compliance with the rule prescribed by that state.” United States v. Vetco, Inc., 691 F.2d 1281, 

1287 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Richmark, 959 F.2d at 1475; see also In re Cathode Ray Tube 

(CRT) Antitrust Litig., No. c-07-5944-SC 2014 WL5462496 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2014).

When making a determination as to whether any documents or information at issue might 

be protected from disclosure under French and European Union law, it is important to note that 

“[t]he party relying on foreign law has the burden of showing such law bars production [of 

documents or information].” In re Air Crash at Taipei, Taiwan on Oct. 31, 2000, 211 F.R.D. 374, 

377 (C.D. Cal. 2002). However, it should also not go without mention that “it 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 [foreign]

statute.” Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, 482 U.S. at 544 n.29 (citing Societe 

Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales, S.A., 357 U.S. at 204-06). For 

Case 3:19-cv-04238-MMC Document 112 Filed 01/31/20 Page 2 of 5
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

this reason, courts have been instructed to employ the above-described multi-factor balancing test, 

as set forth in the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, Section 442(1)(c), in order to 

evaluate the respective interests of the United States and of the party seeking the discovery, in 

comparison to the foreign state’s interest in secrecy. Aerospatiale, 482 U.S. at 543-44 n.28; see 

also BrightEdge Techs., Inc. v. Searchmetrics, GmbH, No. 14-cv-01009-WHO (MEJ), 2014 WL 

3965062 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2014).

The court finds that the majority of these factors weigh in favor of proceeding with 

discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in this case rather than the employment of 

Hague Convention procedures. First, it is far from clear just how much of the information sought 

in discovery “originated” in France. At oral argument, counsel for Defendants at one point 

suggested that some of the information sought in discovery originated in France, but at another 

point suggested that it all originated in France. Meanwhile, Plaintiffs submitted that Defendant 

Vade Secure, Inc. and Defendant Olivier Lemarie are based in the United States, while Defendant 

Vade Secure SASU (a foreign corporation) does business in the United States and is subject to the 

jurisdiction of this court in this matter. As Plaintiffs put it, “[g]iven Defendants domestic 

activities, most of the information sought by the [d]iscovery [r]equests is located in the U.S. and 

from U.S. entities.” Letter Br. (dkt. 91) at 4. While Defendants expressed generalized 

disagreement with this assertion, the court finds that Defendants’ general disagreement, by itself, 

was insufficient to meet their burden in demonstrating that French or European law clearly bars 

the production of the information sought in these proceedings.

“Where the outcome of litigation ‘does not stand or fall on the present discovery order,’ or 

where the evidence sought is cumulative of existing evidence, courts have generally been 

unwilling to override foreign secrecy laws,” however, “[w]here the evidence is directly relevant,” 

this factor weighs against utilizing Hague procedures. Richmark, 959 F.2d at 1475. Plaintiffs have 

complained that they have thus far not received any discovery whatsoever, and therefore the court 

also finds that the discovery presently sought is vital to Plaintiffs’ case, and that the requests have 

been formulated with the requisite degree of specificity in that they are narrowly tailored to target 

information related to Plaintiffs’ misappropriation and breach of contract claims. As to the 

Case 3:19-cv-04238-MMC Document 112 Filed 01/31/20 Page 3 of 5
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

location of the information and the parties, the court finds that two of the three named Defendants 

are located in this district, and that any information kept by Defendant Vade Secure SASU is 

either accessible from this district or easily transmitted or transported here. There is also Plaintiffs’ 

assertion that much of the information it seeks is already in this district. As to the availability of an 

alternative means of securing this information, the court agrees with Plaintiffs that the increased 

costs and added delays associated with proceeding under the Hague Convention and involving the 

French judiciary (or a private French Commissioner) in the discovery process of this case would 

be unduly expensive and time consuming under the circumstances. Regarding the assessment of 

each nation’s interest in the matter, this factor requires the court to evaluate the interests of each 

nation in requiring or prohibiting disclosure, and to determine whether or not disclosure would 

affect important substantive policies or interests of either the United States or France. Richmark, 

959 F.2d at 1476. Here, the United States has an interest in “vindicating the rights of American 

plaintiffs” and in preserving fairness in litigation by requiring equal disclosure from the parties. 

See Aerospatiale, 482 U.S. at 540 n.25; Richmark, 959 F.2d at 1477. While these interests may not 

be very seriously impaired by using Hague procedures in some cases, the court finds merit in

Plaintiffs’ arguments about the added expense and associated delays with the employment of those

procedures in this case. The court finds that this factor does not weigh heavily in either direction 

given that both nations have strong interests here: secrecy for France and fairness in litigation for 

the United States. Lastly, it should be noted that “[i]f a discovery order is likely to be 

unenforceable, and therefore to have no practical effect, that factor counsels against requiring 

compliance with the order.” Richmark, 959 F.2d at 1478. Here, Defendants have given no 

indication that they will refuse to comply, or that the discovery orders of this court would be 

unenforceable outside the Hague Convention procedures; accordingly, this factor also weighs in 

Plaintiffs’ favor. Having found that the majority of factors weigh in favor of proceeding under the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rather than utilizing Hague Convention procedures, Plaintiffs’

Motion to Compel (dkts. 78, 91) is GRANTED.

As to the disputes presented in the Parties second letter brief (dkt. 92), Defendants’ request 

to include their proposed language in the forthcoming proposed ESI order pertaining to the 

Case 3:19-cv-04238-MMC Document 112 Filed 01/31/20 Page 4 of 5
5

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

General Data Protection Regulation of the European Union is GRANTED. Defendants’ request to 

include their proposed language in the forthcoming proposed ESI order pertaining to the French 

blocking law described above is DENIED. Regarding the number of custodians that would be

subject to email production requests, it is ORDERED that there shall be up to 15 such custodians 

from Defendants and up to 8 such custodians from Plaintiffs.

Regarding the disputes presented in the Parties third letter brief (dkt. 93), Defendants’ 

request to include their proposed language in the forthcoming proposed protective order pertaining 

to the General Data Protection Regulation of the European Union is GRANTED. Defendants’

request to include their proposed language in the forthcoming proposed protective order pertaining 

to the French blocking law described above is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ requests (1) to modify the 

standard protective order as to the location for inspection of information subject to the protective 

order, and (2) to modify the standard protective order regarding the installation of particular 

software for evaluating information subject to the protective order, are DENIED. Lastly, it is 

herewith ORDERED that under the parties’ forthcoming proposed protective order, a producing 

party shall provide requested source code printouts within 10 days of any request by the receiving 

party.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2020

ROBERT M. ILLMAN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-04238-MMC Document 112 Filed 01/31/20 Page 5 of 5