Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01317/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01317-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:183 Patent Infringement

---

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: April 23, 2014*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 

and LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS LLC,

Plaintiffs, v.

GOOGLE INC. and YOUTUBE, LLC,

Defendants. ____________________________________/

No. C13-01317-EJD (HRL)

ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

JOINT REPORT #1

[Re: Docket No. 283]

PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC (“PersonalWeb”) sues Google Inc. and YouTube, LLC 

(collectively, “Google”) alleging that several of Google’s IT infrastructure systems infringe 

PersonalWeb’s patents. In the parties’ Discovery Dispute Joint Report #1 (“DDJR#1”), Google 

seeks an order preventing PersonalWeb from disclosing Google confidential material to 

PersonalWeb’s consultant Drew Wright. See Dkt. No. 283. 

Google asserts that Wright has ongoing client relationships with companies in the same field 

as the accused Google systems, and he advises them on pricing and related activities that affect their 

competitive decision-making in the marketing of such systems. Giving Wright access to Google’s 

confidential financial and technical documents would severely prejudice Google in the IT 

infrastructure market because Wright will be unable to “unlearn” this information when advising 

Google’s competitors. Additionally, PersonalWeb would not be prejudiced by preventing disclosure 

Case 5:13-cv-01317-EJD Document 284 Filed 04/23/14 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

to Wright because he is just one of eight proposed damages consultants with similar expertise, and 

he is not expected to testify.

On the other hand, PersonalWeb argues that Google has failed to meet its burden of 

demonstrating good cause to prevent the disclosure. Wright, who PersonalWeb does in fact intend 

on calling as a testifying expert, has signed an agreement to be bound by the Protective Order, and 

there is no reason to believe that he will to disclose any confidential information to Google’s 

competitors. Moreover, the nature of his financial consulting work is such that the information he 

may glean from this litigation could not be used for the benefit of his clients and to the detriment of 

Google. 

The Protective Order entered by the Eastern District of Texas governs this dispute and 

provides the following standard:

The objecting party shall have the burden of showing to the Court “good cause” for 

preventing the disclosure of its Protected Information to the technical adviser. This 

“good cause” shall include a particularized showing that: (1) the Protected 

Information is confidential commercial information, (2) disclosure of the Protected 

Information likely would result in a clearly defined and serious injury to the objecting 

party’s business, (3) the proposed technical advisor is in a position to allow the 

Protected Information to be disclosed to or become known to the objecting party’s 

competitors, and (4) that the technical advisor’s access to Protected Information may 

create other confidentiality or legal risks in connection with other patent-related 

activities or interests tied to the technical.

Dkt. No. 89, Protective Order, at ¶ 3.F.

The Court agrees with PersonalWeb that Google has failed to carry its burden of showing 

good cause. Any fear that Wright may actually disclose Google’s confidential information is 

unfounded speculation, and the Court is not convinced that Wright’s mere knowledge of Google’s 

confidential financial and technical information is in itself likely to cause any harm to Google. 

Accordingly, Google’s request for an order preventing disclosure of confidential information to 

Wright is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2014

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:13-cv-01317-EJD Document 284 Filed 04/23/14 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

C13-01317 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to:

Adam Hockensmith ahockensmith@susmangodfrey.com, jdunaven@susmangodfrey.com 

Allen Franklin Gardner allengardner@potterminton.com 

Ashley Lauren McMillian amcmillian@susmangodfrey.com 

Davida P Brook dbrook@susmangodfrey.com, eball@susmangodfrey.com 

Daymon Jeffrey Rambin jrambin@capshawlaw.com 

Elizabeth DeRieux ederieux@capshawlaw.com 

Joseph S. Grinstein jgrinstein@susmangodfrey.com, tadkins@susmangodfrey.com 

Justin Adatto Nelson jnelson@susmangodfrey.com 

Kalpana Srinivasan ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com, hdanielson@susmangodfrey.com 

Marc M. Seltzer mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com 

Matthew M. Wolf matthew.wolf@aporter.com 

Max Lalon Tribble , Jr mtribble@susmangodfrey.com, tadkins@susmangodfrey.com 

Michael A. Berta michael.berta@aporter.com, alaina.austin@aporter.com, 

sfcalendar@aporter.com 

Michael Anthony Berta michael.berta@aporter.com 

Michael E Jones mikejones@potterminton.com 

Nicholas Lee nicholas.lee@aporter.com 

Nicholas H Lee nicholas.lee@aporter.com, donna.johnson@aporter.com, 

elizabeth.tryon@aporter.com, john.fitzpatrick@aporter.com, MaryAnne.Donaldson@aporter.com 

Ryan J. Casamiquela ryan.casamiquela@aporter.com, jane.rustice@aporter.com, 

SFCalendar@aporter.com 

Sandeep Seth ss@sethlaw.com 

Sara Patricia Zogg sara.zogg@aporter.com 

Sidney Calvin Capshaw , III ccapshaw@capshawlaw.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 5:13-cv-01317-EJD Document 284 Filed 04/23/14 Page 3 of 3