Court filing
ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Re 81 Parties' Joint Discovery Letter… — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 82)
No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC · Doc. 82 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 82 Filed 03/25/22 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 CAT BROOKS, et al., Case No. 21-cv-01418-EMC
8 Plaintiffs,
ORDER RE PARTIES’ JOINT
9 v. DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF OF
MARCH 24, 2022
10 THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,
Docket No. 81
11 Defendant.
12
United States District Court
13
14 The parties raise a dispute over the procedure by which Defendant will comply with
15 Plaintiffs’ discovery request for Defendant’s data-licensing agreements for CLEAR with third
Northern District of California
16 parties. Defendant does not dispute the relevance of the requested documents, and agrees it will
17 produce at least some of the agreements. However, Defendant notes that “over 80 agreements
18 include confidentiality restrictions. . . . Some require advance notice before disclosure of their
19 terms. . . Some (but not all) allow for production without notice following a court order.” Docket
20 No. 81 at 2. Defendant proposes informing those third parties of Plaintiffs’ request, waiting to see
21 if any of the third parties object, and then bringing any disputes that remain to the Court at a later
22 date. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiffs explain that its discovery request has now been pending for several
23 months, Defendant has failed to produce any agreements or notify third-parties of Plaintiffs’
24 request, and, thus, Plaintiffs seeks an order compelling Defendant to produce all data-licensing
25 agreements, notwithstanding the terms of the various confidentiality provisions.
26 The Court grants Plaintiffs’ request.
27 Defendant agrees that, other than the presence of confidentiality provisions in some
28 agreements, the licensing agreements are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and are discoverable.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 82 Filed 03/25/22 Page 2 of 3
1 Defendant also does not dispute the principle that “‘[c]onfidentiality agreements do not bar
2 discovery, and a general interest in protecting confidentiality does not equate to privilege.’” See
3 Valley Surgical Ctr. LLC. v. Cty. of Los Angeles, No. CV1302265DDPAGRX, 2018 WL 2189458,
4 at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2018) (citation omitted); id. (collecting cases); Seegert v. Rexall
5 Sundown, Inc., No. 17CV01243JAHJLB, 2019 WL 12044514, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2019)
6 (“[T]he Court finds persuasive case law holding that third-party confidentiality agreements, such
7 as those here, should not and do not necessarily preclude a party from producing otherwise
8 permissible discovery.”); Chevron Mining Inc. v. Skanska USA Civ. W. Rocky Mountain Dist.,
9 Inc., No. 19-CV-04144-LB, 2019 WL 11556844, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2019) (“[T]he fact that
10 [a third party] and Skanska might have decided amongst themselves to enter into a confidentiality
11 agreement does not bar the settlement from being discoverable under the Federal Rules of Civil
12 Procedure in a litigation where Skanska is a defendant.”). And, Defendant does not dispute that
United States District Court
13 confidential information produced in the course of discovery will be subject to the parties’ agreed-
14 upon protective order, and the “protective order . . . will . . . protect [that] information.” In Re:
15 Vizio, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litig., No. 8:16-ML-02693, Dkt. 260 at 14 (C.D. Cal. Feb 5. 2018).
Northern District of California
16 Thus, there is no legal basis to delay production of the licensing agreements at this time.
17 Defendant cites Seegert to propose that the Court provide third-parties an opportunity to move
18 for a protective order prior to Defendant’s production. 2019 WL 12044514, *8. But the court in
19 Seegert referred to the notification-and-objection procedure to which the parties agreed their protective
20 order; the court did not create a new process on its own accord in settling the discovery dispute. Id.
21 at *4-*8. Defendant cites no similar notification-and-objection procedure in the protective order
22 agreed upon in this case. Moreover, a third party is not without recourse in this case. It may move
23 to intervene in this litigation to block the requested discovery, should it be so inclined. See, e.g.,
24 Chevron Mining Inc., 2019 WL 11556844, at *1.
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
2
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 82 Filed 03/25/22 Page 3 of 3
1 Defendant is ORDERED to produce all relevant requested data-licensing agreements to
2 Plaintiffs within 21 days of entry of this order.
3 This order disposes of Docket No. 81.
4
5 IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7 Dated: March 25, 2022
8
9 ______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
10 United States District Judge
11
12
United States District Court
13
14
15
Northern District of California
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.374304.82.0.pdf
- Size
- 122,518 bytes
- SHA-256
- a38871b2392173ec2f840ed78dd71ab62543bcdd03309a4028e894a518403069
- Original
- PACER (login required)