Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03078/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03078-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Foote
Counter-claimant
Music Group Macao Commercial Offshore Limited
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

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

MUSIC GROUP MACAO COMMERCIAL 

OFFSHORE LIMITED,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID FOOTE,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03078-JSC 

ORDER ON MOTION TO RETAIN 

CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 104, 112

This case arises out of a cyber attack on the global computer network and communication 

systems of Plaintiff Music Group Macao Commercial Offshore Limited (“Plaintiff”). During the 

course of discovery, Plaintiff designated a large number of documents as confidential pursuant to 

the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (“Protective Order”). Defendant has challenged the lion’s 

share of those confidentiality designations, contending that Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden 

of establishing that each particular document must remain protected. The motion currently 

pending before the Court is somewhat unusual. Rather than identify specific documents as the 

Protective Order requires (see Dkt. No. 41 ¶¶ 6.1, 6.2), Plaintiff moves to preserve the 

confidentiality designation of some unknown number of, and indeed unidentified, documents. 

(Dkt. No. 104.) Essentially, Plaintiff asks the Court to rule that documents that contain certain 

categories of information are confidential. This somewhat generic process was necessitated by 

Defendant’s broad objection to the confidential designation of perhaps hundreds of documents, 

and Plaintiff’s need to not waive its assertion of confidentiality pursuant to paragraph 6.3 of the 

Stipulated Protected Order. (Dkt. No. 41.)

After reviewing the parties’ written submissions, the Court finds the motion suitable for 

resolution without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Now that the Court has ruled on the 

Case 3:14-cv-03078-JSC Document 127 Filed 06/30/15 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

confidentiality of documents submitted in connection with summary judgment, the parties have 

specific guidance as to what may be deemed confidential. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is 

DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff is ordered to revisit its confidentiality designations and 

provide Defendant with revised designations within 30 days of the date of this Order. As the order 

on the motions to seal in connection with the summary judgment proceeding directs, many 

documents can be produced with only limited portions designated as confidential or not designated 

as confidential at all. (See Dkt. No. 41 (Protective Order) ¶ 5.1.) If following this redesignation 

Defendant believes that any particular documents are not properly designated as confidential, then 

Defendant shall so notify Plaintiff in accordance with paragraph 6 of the Protective Order. (Id.

¶ 6.) Defendant must identify each specific document and describe the basis for challenging each 

specific document. The meet and confer process must then begin anew.

In the interim, Defendant shall treat the documents designated as confidential as such. 

Given that the documents remain confidential and have not been relevant to or relied on by the 

Court in any determination—aside from the documents at issue in Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment, which the Court separately addressed—, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s 

administrative motion to file under seal the unredacted versions of documents that contain 

information that Plaintiff designated as confidential. (Dkt. No. 112.)

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 104 and 112.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03078-JSC Document 127 Filed 06/30/15 Page 2 of 2