Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01370/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01370-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BLADEROOM GROUP LIMITED, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.5:15-cv-01370-EJD (HRL)

**REDACTED**

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

JOINT REPORT NO. 3

Re: Dkt. No. 147

At issue in Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) No. 3: whether plaintiffs should be 

compelled to provide further responses to Facebook’s Interrogatories 1 and 7-9 to BladeRoom 

Group Limited (“BRG”) and Interrogatories 4-6 to Bripco (UK) Limited (“Bripco”). Briefly 

stated, these interrogatories ask plaintiffs to describe, for each alleged trade secret identified in 

their trade secrets disclosure, the circumstances of disclosure to any person;1every instance in 

which Facebook allegedly uses the claimed trade secret;2and the value to Facebook and the value 

to plaintiffs of the claimed trade secret.3

Facebook’s chief complaint is that plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses do not provide

information for each of the 25 alleged trade secrets at issue. Rather, Facebook says that plaintiffs 

 

1

Interrogatory 1 to BRG 2

Interrogatory 7 to BRG; Interrogatory 4 to Bripco

3

Interrogatories 8-9 to BRG; Interrogatories 5-6 to Bripco

Case 5:15-cv-01370-EJD Document 221 Filed 03/09/17 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

Northern District of California

meld them all together. Plaintiffs do not dispute that in their responses they lumped all 25 alleged 

trade secrets together and explain “that Plaintiffs’ trade secrets are not a collection of 25 unrelated 

and ‘separate purported trade secrets,’ but, rather, a system of numerous designs, components, and 

techniques for the construction of warehoused-sized data centers in a modular fashion” (Dkt. 147, 

DDJR #3 at 7:13-15). Plaintiffs go on to say that these 25 secrets form a system that is a “unitary 

product.”

Actually, plaintiffs get tangled up in their words. They write that it is “erroneous” that 

they have claimed misappropriation of 25 “separate” trade secrets in this action. Then they go on 

to say: “While the Disclosure includes a list of 25 separate trade secrets that relate to different 

aspects of their methodology and the BladeRoom product, Plaintiffs do not market or offer to sell 

their trade secrets separately . . ..” (DDJR #3 at 8:22-24) (emphasis added). So the trade secrets 

are both separate and not separate? Or, does the word separate have varying meanings?

Are we are dealing with one big secret (a unitary product) that is composed of 25 “subsecrets”? If so, what would be the outcome of the case if plaintiffs failed to convince the trier of 

fact that Facebook had misappropriated all 25 sub-secrets? Suppose plaintiffs only proved one or 

two of the claimed secrets in their trade secret disclosures were copied by Facebook? Defense 

verdict?

Furthermore, plaintiffs’ argument that the 25 secrets blend together into a unitary product 

and, accordingly, should not be examined individually is contradicted by their own words in their 

trade secret disclosures. There, they describe how they claim to have developed a better way to 

build warehouse-sized data centers:

[

REDACTED

]

Case 5:15-cv-01370-EJD Document 221 Filed 03/09/17 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

Northern District of California

[ REDACTED

]

It seems to the court that plaintiffs are trying to have it both ways. Maybe they can 

ultimately, but they cannot for purposes of how they must respond to discovery requests. 

Plaintiffs themselves have put the individual 25 secrets into play, and Facebook is entitled to get 

interrogatory responses that track all 25 individually.

Plaintiffs’ objections that the interrogatories are overbroad, premature, and unduly 

burdensome are overruled. They may be waiting on their experts to solidify their damages, but 

months have gone by now and, if they have more to give, they must do so.

Plaintiffs’ objection that the interrogatories are compound (and thus there should be a 

separate question for each of the 25 trade secrets, probably exceeding the allowable number of 

interrogatories under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1)) is likewise overruled. Since plaintiffs claim that 

their data center secrets are woven into a unitary product, there is nothing compound about asking 

what goes into that product. Alternatively, if the court is incorrect, then it increases the allowable 

number of interrogatories to accommodate the ones at issue here.

The objection based on attorney client privilege and work product doctrine needs to be 

substantiated before the court can rule. When plaintiffs submit their supplemental answers, and if 

they are serious about this objection, they must include (without revealing the substance of the 

information) what they are withholding and why it is privileged or protected.

Within 14 days from the filing of this order plaintiffs shall provide further supplemental 

responses to the interrogatories at issue here.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2017

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01370-EJD Document 221 Filed 03/09/17 Page 3 of 3