Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561-312/pdf.json

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOOGLE INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 10-cv-03561-WHA (DMR)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART NON-PARTY LG’S 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 1503

Before the court is a discovery letter in which non-party LG Electronics, Inc. (“LG”) 

moves for a protective order. Docket No. 1503. The court has determined that this matter is 

appropriate for determination without oral argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons stated 

below, LG’s motion for a protective order is granted in part and denied in part, and its request to 

modify the existing Protective Order is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

In this copyright action, Defendant Google determined that two draft agreements and one 

executed business agreement between LG and Google are responsive to Plaintiff Oracle’s

discovery requests.

1

 In conformance with a non-disclosure agreement between Google and LG, 

Google informed LG that it intended to produce the documents to Oracle. Pursuant to Section 11 

of the Protective Order entered in this case, LG then had fourteen days to object to production of 

those documents. Docket Nos. 66 and 68.2

 

1

The documents at issue are identified by Bates numbers PLA005_02356723, PLA007_3398019, 

PLA005_02577973, and PLA005_02577855. The last two documents are identical. 

2 On February 8, 2016, LG moved to extend its deadline to file a motion for a protective order. 

The Hon. William H. Alsup granted LG’s motion in part, and extended LG’s filing deadline to 

February 12, 2016. Docket No. 1499. LG’s motion is therefore timely. 

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1510 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 4
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

LG now moves the court for a protective order to prevent Google from producing the 

documents to Oracle, arguing that they contain highly sensitive commercial information. In the 

alternative, LG requests that the court amend the existing Protective Order to specifically provide

for damages for LG in the event that a party breaches its non-disclosure obligations. 

Google takes no position regarding LG’s motion for a protective order, but Oracle opposes 

it. Both Google and Oracle object to LG’s alternative request for an amendment to the existing 

Protective Order. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that a party may obtain discovery “regarding 

any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the 

needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Courts have the power to issue protective orders in 

the discovery process in order “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, 

oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). “Rule 26(c) confers broad 

discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of 

protection is required.” Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984). 

III. ANALYSIS

At issue are two draft business agreements and one final business agreement between LG 

and Google, all pertaining to the manufacture of smart phones. Oracle argues that the documents 

are relevant to its damages analyses, as well as Google’s fair use defense. 

The draft documents comprise one draft purchase agreement between LG and Google 

regarding LG-supplied Android phones, and a draft exhibit to a purchase agreement for a different 

LG-supplied Android phone. LG contends that the drafts are not relevant because there is no 

indication that the terms in the drafts ever materialized into actual agreements. LG further argues 

that the drafts reveal LG’s negotiating positions and would be damaging to LG if discovered by its 

customers or competitors. 

Oracle’s arguments focus on the relevance of agreements between Google and its Android 

partners such as LG. Oracle does not address, and therefore concedes LG’s contention that draft 

agreements have little, if any, relevance to the case. For this reason, LG’s motion for a protective 

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1510 Filed 02/19/16 Page 2 of 4
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

order with respect to the two draft business agreements is granted. 

Google incorrectly coded one of the draft documents. This resulted in Google’s failure to 

provide pre-disclosure notification to LG, as well as the unauthorized production of the draft to 

Oracle. Google requested that Oracle destroy or return the document, but Oracle refused to do so. 

Under the authority of Rule 26(c)(1), the court orders Oracle to return the original and all copies of 

the document to Google. LG should not be penalized for Google’s error, especially since Oracle 

had no right to production of the irrelevant document in the first place. 

The remaining document is an executed business agreement which contains terms 

governing prices and quantities of phones that LG sold to Google. LG does not dispute the 

relevance of the document, but instead argues that there is a less burdensome way for Oracle to 

discover the relevant information. According to LG, Oracle should be able to obtain pricing and 

quantity information from Google’s accounting records. LG contends that as a non-party, it

should not have to run the risk of disclosure of confidential contract terms when the information 

sought by Oracle is readily available from Google. 

LG relies on Laxalt v. McClatchy, 116 F.R.D. 455 (D. Nev. 1986) for the proposition that 

that nonparties enjoy greater protection from discovery than parties. Laxalt addressed discovery 

requests directed at a non-party. That is not the situation here. In this case, Google is responding 

to Oracle’s discovery requests. LG provided no authority for its position that a heightened 

relevancy standard applies to party discovery where third-party interests may be implicated. The 

document is clearly relevant to the case. LG’s concerns about the disclosure of its confidential 

information are addressed by the fact that Google has designated the document as “Highly 

Confidential–Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the existing Protective Order. The court therefore 

denies LG’s request for a protective order that prevents Google from producing the finalized 

business agreement to Oracle.

In the alternative, LG requests that the court modify the existing Protective Order to 

provide damages to LG in the event of disclosure of confidential information. It argues that 

inadvertent disclosure would cause LG serious competitive harm, and contends that the Protective 

Order currently does not offer adequate protection or compensation in the event of a breach of the

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1510 Filed 02/19/16 Page 3 of 4
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

non-disclosure obligations.

LG must show good cause to modify the operative Protective Order to add an LG-specific 

provision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) (court may issue a protective order upon a showing of 

“good cause”). LG has failed to do so. Nothing in the existing Protective Order limits LG’s 

ability to seek remedies for violations of the non-disclosure provisions. See Docket Nos. 66, 68. 

Moreover, the court has the authority to address failures to comply with the Protective Order under 

Rule 37 or through exercise of its inherent power. See, e.g., Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney 

Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015, 1035 (9th Cir. 2012) (upholding district court’s imposition of sanctions 

under the court’s inherent power for party’s violation of a protective order); Westinghouse Elec. 

Corp. v. Newman & Holtzinger, P.C., 992 F.2d 932, 934-35 (9th Cir. 1993) (Rule 37 grants courts the 

authority to impose sanctions where a party has violated a discovery order, including a protective 

order); Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Corp., 702 F.2d 770, 783 (9th Cir.1983)(“Rule 

37(b) sanctions may serve either remedial and compensatory purposes or punitive and deterrent 

purposes”). 

If LG believes that the court’s ability to impose remedies for violations of the Protective 

Order is inadequate, it has failed to explain how or why. Judge Alsup admonished the parties that 

they are “expected to fully comply with all protective orders.” Docket No. 1460. LG retains the 

same rights as any other interested party to seek relief from any damage or harm resulting from a 

violation of the Protective Order, or from any violation of its Non-Disclosure Agreement with 

Google. LG’s request to modify the operative Protective Order is therefore denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1510 Filed 02/19/16 Page 4 of 4