Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-00404/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-00404-10/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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ALTA DEVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.18-cv-00404-LHK (VKD)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE 

PLAINTIFF'S DOCUMENT

REQUESTS

Re: Dkt. No. 123

Plaintiff Alta Devices, Inc. (“Alta”) seeks an order compelling defendant LG Electronics, 

Inc. (“LGE”) to produce documents responsive to certain of Alta’s document requests. The Court 

heard oral argument on June 25, 2019. Dkt. No. 127. For the reasons stated on the record and as 

further explained below, the Court denies Alta’s motion to compel.

In this action, Alta claims that LGE has used and disclosed its confidential information in 

violation of the parties’ 2011 non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”). See Dkt. Nos. 77, 97. Alta has 

served a number of document requests on LGE that encompass documents reflecting how LGE 

used information and product samples that Alta provided to LGE under a different NDA executed 

in 2014. Dkt. No. 123, Ex. B. LGE objects to this discovery on the ground that information 

disclosed pursuant to the parties’ 2014 NDA is not relevant to the claims in this case. Id. at 6-7.

Alta’s rationale for seeking discovery concerning information disclosed under the 2014 

NDA is that if information disclosed under the 2014 NDA was provided to or used by LGE 

custodians who also received or used information disclosed under the 2011 NDA, discovery of the 

disclosure of 2014 NDA information to such custodians is relevant to Alta’s claim for breach of 

the 2011 NDA because it suggests that LGE used the 2014 NDA information to further its 

unauthorized use of the 2011 NDA information. The Court is skeptical of the logic underlying 

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 129 Filed 06/25/19 Page 1 of 2
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

this rationale. It is by no means self-evident that LGE’s use or disclosure of information received 

under the 2014 NDA, which is not at issue in this case, informs in any way whether LGE used or 

disclosed without authorization information it received under the 2011 NDA.

LGE’s objections to the scope of Alta’s documents requests are well taken. Alta may not 

obtain discovery of the use or disclosure of information obtained under the parties’ 2014 NDA. 

Alta asserts no claims relating to the 2014 NDA, and it has not articulated a sufficient basis for its 

thesis that discovery relating to that NDA informs its claim for breach of the 2011 NDA. Alta 

may take discovery of how LGE used or disclosed information LGE obtained under the parties’ 

2011 NDA. That discovery may include periods of time that post-date the disclosure term of the 

2011 NDA, and such discovery is not barred simply because a particular document references both 

information provided under the 2011 NDA and information provided under the 2014 NDA.

Accordingly, Alta’s motion to compel is denied, and LGE’s document production shall 

proceed consistent with the scope of production outlined above in this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 129 Filed 06/25/19 Page 2 of 2