Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. v. Topcon Medical Systems, Inc., 19-cv-04162-SBA (LB). (2020)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20200317912
Visitors: 9
Filed: Mar. 16, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 16, 2020
Summary: DISCOVERY ORDER Re: ECF No. 165 & 168 LAUREL BEELER , Magistrate Judge . The parties submitted their joint letter discovery briefs disputing (generally) the scope of the defendants' discovery obligation. 1 The plaintiff is seeking information it contends is necessary to determine whether any of its confidential trade secrets were transferred onto the defendants' devices and evaluate whether Topcon independently developed its own ophthalmic diagnostic software. 2 Topcon opposes such wide-
Summary: DISCOVERY ORDER Re: ECF No. 165 & 168 LAUREL BEELER , Magistrate Judge . The parties submitted their joint letter discovery briefs disputing (generally) the scope of the defendants' discovery obligation. 1 The plaintiff is seeking information it contends is necessary to determine whether any of its confidential trade secrets were transferred onto the defendants' devices and evaluate whether Topcon independently developed its own ophthalmic diagnostic software. 2 Topcon opposes such wide-r..
More
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: ECF No. 165 & 168
LAUREL BEELER, Magistrate Judge.
The parties submitted their joint letter discovery briefs disputing (generally) the scope of the defendants' discovery obligation.1 The plaintiff is seeking information it contends is necessary to determine whether any of its confidential trade secrets were transferred onto the defendants' devices and evaluate whether Topcon independently developed its own ophthalmic diagnostic software.2 Topcon opposes such wide-ranging discovery because the plaintiff is seeking discovery from Topcon employees who have not been accused of stealing trade secrets and does not want to disclose the "development, marketing, and sales documents for all the ophthalmic software products made by Topcon."3 The court can decide this dispute without oral argument. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).
At this juncture, and with two pending motions to dismiss that could dispose of this case entirely, the court declines to compel such wide-ranging discovery. The court does ask the parties to discuss possible accommodations to protect their trade secrets. For example, parties before this court have engaged reputable third-party vendors to perform segmented searches in stages. At stage one, the third-party vendor conducts a search limited to certain document repositories controlled by the alleged individual bad actor. At stage two, depending on the stage one findings, the third-party vendor could expand the search to additional document repositories. At stage three, assuming the documents show the trade secrets were shared or disseminated, the third-party vendor could expand its search to additional custodians. Any relevant documents containing trade secrets could then be designated and limited to "Attorneys' Eyes Only" to alleviate any concerns trade secrets being shared with competitors.
The parties may file a renewed joint discovery brief after the trial judge has decided the pending motions to dismiss and they have discussed the accommodations outlined above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Joint Letter Briefs — ECF Nos. 165 & 168. The second letter is an amended version of the parties' earlier letter. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File ("ECF"); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.
2. Joint Letter Brief — ECF No. 168 at 1-2, 4.
3. Id. at 3, 5 (internal quotations omitted).
Source: Leagle