Filed: Apr. 05, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 05, 2017
Summary: ORDER RE PROTECTIVE ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 60 SUSAN VAN KEULEN , Magistrate Judge . The parties have a filed a Joint Discovery Brief for Entry of Protective Order (ECF 60). In the Joint Brief, the parties explain that they have agreed on the terms of a proposed protective order, except the procedure by which designated confidential information produced in this case may be used in other litigation between the parties. Together with their Joint Brief, each party submitted a proposed protective o
Summary: ORDER RE PROTECTIVE ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 60 SUSAN VAN KEULEN , Magistrate Judge . The parties have a filed a Joint Discovery Brief for Entry of Protective Order (ECF 60). In the Joint Brief, the parties explain that they have agreed on the terms of a proposed protective order, except the procedure by which designated confidential information produced in this case may be used in other litigation between the parties. Together with their Joint Brief, each party submitted a proposed protective or..
More
ORDER RE PROTECTIVE ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 60
SUSAN VAN KEULEN, Magistrate Judge.
The parties have a filed a Joint Discovery Brief for Entry of Protective Order (ECF 60). In the Joint Brief, the parties explain that they have agreed on the terms of a proposed protective order, except the procedure by which designated confidential information produced in this case may be used in other litigation between the parties. Together with their Joint Brief, each party submitted a proposed protective order. Having considered the papers submitted and determined that no further briefing or hearing is necessary, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts defendant TeleSign Corp.'s ("TeleSign") proposed protective order as further amended by the Court.
I. BACKGROUND
The parties are currently engaged in three separate lawsuits, including the current case. The other two suits are in the Central District of California: TeleSign Corp. v. Twilio Inc., No. 2:15-cv-03240-PSG-SS ("Twilio I") and TeleSign Corp. v. Twilio Inc., No. 2:16-cv-02106-PSG-SS ("Twilio II") (together, the "CDCA cases"). Twilio I has been stayed pending IPR review. (ECF 60 at 2.) Currently pending in Twilio II is a motion to stay and consolidate the case with Twilio I. Discovery is also stayed in Twilio II. (ECF 60 at 2.) A protective order has been entered in Twilio I, and the parties have proposed to enter the same protective order in Twilio II as is in Twilio I. (ECF 60 at 4.) The parties agree that sharing discovery across all three cases is appropriate. (ECF 60 at 1.) The parties disagree, however, on whether a producing party should be able to opt-out of cross-use of its designated materials or if, alternatively, the agreed upon safeguards in the draft protective orders are sufficient.
The parties' competing proposals are as follows, with the disputed language underlined:
Twilio's Proposal TeleSign's Proposal
1.2 Designated Material may be used by a 1.2 Designated Material may be used by a
Receiving Party only for purposes of litigating Receiving Party only for purposes of litigating
or defending this Action, subject to the or defending this Action, subject to the
following exception: such material may following exception: such material may
additionally be used in any of the CDCA additionally be used in any of the CDCA
Actions as though designated and produced in Actions as though designated and produced in
such action, unless a producing party (including such action, provided such use is for the
third parties) elects to limit the use of produced purpose of litigating (including defending) such
material to a particular action, and provided action and is otherwise in compliance with the
such use is for the purpose of litigating order(s) entered in such action that apply to
(including defending) such action and is material bearing the same designation. Nothing
otherwise in compliance with the order(s) in this provision 1.2 alters, in the CDCA cases,
entered in such action that apply to material a Party's (or third party's) bases to challenge
bearing the same designation. (Ex. A at § 1.2) the admissibility or use of such Material in the
CDCA cases. (Ex. B at § 1.2)
II. DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 provides that the Rules of Civil Procedure "should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding." Sharing discovery in substantially similar cases between the same parties advances the interests of judicial economy by avoiding the wasteful duplication of discovery. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003). More specifically, under such circumstances, the parties should not have to request or produce the same information twice, duplicate subpoenas and notices to third parties, or maintain separate e-discovery databases.
Here, the cases involve the same parties and counsel, present substantially similar issues, and will likely concern the same third parties. (ECF 60 at 4.) Interests of third parties will be adequately protected under the Protective Order by the express language in TeleSign's proposal and by the Court's amendments to sections 1.2 and 10.2.2. Third parties will receive notice of the production and cross-use of Designated Material and will have sufficient opportunity to raise their concerns with the Court if necessary. As a result, because of the similarities in the cases and adequate safeguards for third parties, Rule 1 favors cross-use of discovery in this case and the CDCA cases to allow for the "just, speedy, and inexpensive" resolution of the cases.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will issue TeleSign's proposed version of the protective order, as amended by the Court.
SO ORDERED.
