Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561-436/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GOOGLE INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 10-03561 WHA

ORDER RE PROTECTIVE

ORDER AND MOTION

FOR CONTEMPT

By long tradition, when a lawyer wishes to reveal in open court information whose

disclosure is restricted by a protective order, the lawyer must first explain the restriction to the

judge and (i) ask to seal the courtroom and transcript or (ii) hand up a copy of the restricted

information to the judge. This practice is not explicitly stated in our model protective order (or

in the similar protective order adopted in this case), but this practice necessarily flows from the

restrictions that are explicit, namely a limited list of allowed recipients that plainly omits the

public. Of course, “the court and its personnel” are usually allowed recipients but that phrase

does not mean “the court, its personnel, and the public.” Otherwise, the recipe for Coca-Cola or

any other highly private information could be blurted out in open court. No one has ever

claimed otherwise — until this case. 

The special handling required by protective orders is not mere boilerplate as respondents

argue. The special handling is the quid pro quo for gaining access to sensitive information. 

Those who need to maintain their information in privacy will resist even court orders to allow

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 2065 Filed 09/23/16 Page 1 of 2
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

discovery if the lawyers who want access can brush off the special handling as boilerplate. We

must honor our word that the information will be kept secure.

Respondents’ arguments that the orders in this case permitted public disclosure of

restricted information are rejected.

All that remains is the desire by movant to be reimbursed for expenses of an earlier

motion to seal. To get there, movants want a finding of contempt of court. That seems heavy

handed, perhaps even vindictive, when all that remains at stake is a few dollars in an ocean of

money spent on this case. Everyone involved is hereby referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth

Laporte for a conference on WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, to settle the balance of this motion,

failing which the Court will resolve it. Counsel shall please contact Judge Laporte’s chambers

immediately.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 2065 Filed 09/23/16 Page 2 of 2