Transcript of Proceedings held on June — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 105, N.D. Cal. No. 3:21-cv-01418)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC · Doc. 105 · 2022-07-20 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

PAGES 1 - 12  
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
BEFORE THE HONORABLE EDWARD M. CHEN  
CAT BROOKS AND RASHEED SHABAZZ,    ) 
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF      ) 
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,     ) 
                                   ) 
             PLAINTIFFS,           ) 
                                   ) 
  VS.                              )  CASE NO. 21-CV-01418-EMC 
                                   ) 
THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,       ) 
                                   )  SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 
             DEFENDANT.            )  VIA ZOOM VIDEOCONFERENCE 
           )  THURSDAY, JUNE 30, 2022  
___________________________________)   
 
 
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS  
APPEARANCES: 
 
FOR PLAINTIFFS          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 
505 14TH STREET, SUITE 1110 
OAKLAND, CA 94612  
                   BY:  ANDRE MURA, ESQUIRE  
                        EZEKIEL WARD, ESQUIRE 
 
 
FOR DEFENDANT 
PERKINS COIE 
1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 4900 
SEATTLE, WA 98101-3099  
                   BY:  NICOLA MENALDO, ESQUIRE                       
 
 
FOR MOVANT
FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP 
555 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1700 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA  94102 
         BY:  JASON Y. WU, ESQUIRE 
 
REPORTED BY:  JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR #5435, RPR 
              PRO TEM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC  
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 105     Filed 07/20/22     Page 1 of 13

     2
JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
PRO TEM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
510-367-3043
THURSDAY, JUNE 30, 2022                          1:47 P.M. 
 
PROCEEDINGS 
THE CLERK:  COURT IS NOW CALLING BROOKS, ET AL.
VERSUS THOMPSON REUTERS CORPORATION, CASE NUMBER 21-1418.
COUNSEL, PLEASE STATE YOUR APPEARANCE FOR THE RECORD,
BEGINNING WITH PLAINTIFF.
MR. MURA:  YES.  HELLO, ANDREW MURA FOR THE
PLAINTIFFS, AND I'M JOINED HERE BY MY COLLEAGUE, EZEKIAL WALD,
WHO WILL BE ARGUING TODAY, YOUR HONOR. 
THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  THANK YOU.
MR. WALD:  GOOD AFTERNOON.  EZEKIAL WALD FOR THE
PLAINTIFFS.
THE COURT:  THANK YOU.
MS. MENALDO:  GOOD AFTERNOON.  NICOLA MENALDO FROM
PERKINS COIE ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT THOMSON REUTERS.  
THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  THANK YOU, MS. MENALDO.  
MR. WU:  GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.  JASON WU,
FOLEY & LARDNER, ON BEHALF OF NON-PARTY, FILE & SERVEXPRESS.
THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.  SO WE ARE ON FOR FSX'S MOTION FOR LIMITED
INTERVENTION AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.  IT
IS CONCERNED ABOUT ITS SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH TR, AND ALTHOUGH
IT'S NOT A PARTY, IT'S GOT AN INTEREST IN THIS MATTER, MAINLY
IN PROTECTING, OR AT LEAST PRESERVING FOR NOW, THE
 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
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 105     Filed 07/20/22     Page 2 of 13

     3
JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
PRO TEM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
510-367-3043
CONFIDENTIALITY OF THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT.  THAT'S THE FOCUS OF
THIS, CORRECT, MR. WU?
MR. WU:  THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, WITHOUT,
ULTIMATELY -- YOU KNOW, WITHOUT FORECASTING WHAT MIGHT BECOME
OF THIS DOCUMENT AND WHETHER AT SOME POINT IT MIGHT BE EXPOSED,
I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM OF ALLOWING LIMITED INTERVENTION,
PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING THE -- OR
SAFEGUARDING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE SERVICE AGREEMENT AND
HAVING A SEAT AT THE TABLE TO THE EXTENT THAT, YOU KNOW, ONE OR
BOTH PARTIES THINKS THAT THAT SERVICE AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT BE
CONFIDENTIAL AND SHOULD BE UNSEALED AND SHOULD BE AVAILABLE,
FOR INSTANCE, FOR MOTION WORK, HEARINGS, OR TRIAL, ET CETERA,
ET CETERA.  
SO MY INTENT -- I'LL HEAR IF THERE'S CONTRARY VIEW --
IS TO ALLOW LIMITED INTERVENTION AND ORDER THAT THE PARTIES --
I WOULD ALLOW THE PARTIES TO MAINTAIN POSSESSION OF THE
DOCUMENT AND -- HAVE POSSESSION OF THE DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE
PLAINTIFF, BUT UNDER, AT LEAST FOR NOW, ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY,
AND IF AT SOME POINT IT IS NECESSARY OR IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE TO
DISCLOSE THIS TO A WIDER CIRCLE OR PUBLICIZE IT, THEN THE
PARTIES COULD MEET AND CONFER AND SEE IF THEY CAN COME TO AN
AGREEMENT.  IF NOT, THEY CAN BRING THAT BACK TO ME FOR
ADJUDICATION.  BUT AT LEAST FOR DISCOVERY PURPOSES, IT SEEMS
APPROPRIATE TO HAVE THIS DOCUMENT PRODUCED AND AVAILABLE TO THE
 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
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 105     Filed 07/20/22     Page 3 of 13

     4
JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
PRO TEM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
510-367-3043
PARTIES BUT UNDER A PROTECTIVE ORDER.
MR. WU:  THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.  AND I'M SORRY IF I
WAS UNCLEAR ABOUT OUR POSITION AT THE OUTSET.
WHAT WE'RE SEEKING THROUGH THIS MOTION IS A
PROTECTIVE ORDER THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY PROHIBIT DISCLOSURE OF
THE DOCUMENT EVEN FOR PURPOSES OF LITIGATION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT:  EVEN UNDER ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY?
MR. WU:  THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT:  AND WHY -- I UNDERSTAND IF THERE ARE
PROPRIETARY THINGS AND CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS ASPECTS, BUT IF
IT'S FOR AEO, WHAT'S THE HARM?
MR. WALD:  WELL, YOUR HONOR, I THINK THERE HASN'T
BEEN A MINIMUM THRESHOLD OF RELEVANCE THAT'S BEEN MET FOR THIS
DOCUMENT.  AS I UNDERSTAND PLAINTIFFS' ARGUMENT, THE ARGUMENT
FOR RELEVANCE IS FAIRLY SPECULATIVE, AS I READ THE COMPLAINT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT CASE TO BE ABOUT DISCLOSURE OF
CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS' PRIVATE INFORMATION.  SO TO SEEK A
CONTRACT ABOUT HOW THOMSON REUTERS OBTAINED PERSONAL
INFORMATION FROM AN OUT-OF-STATE COURT, I THINK THERE'S AT
LEAST AN ARGUMENT THAT THAT'S NOT EVEN DISCOVERABLE UNDER A
CALIFORNIA STATE LAW STANDARD.  AND AS WE KNOW IN FEDERAL
COURT, THERE IS EVEN A HIGHER STANDARD OF PROPORTIONALITY.
SO EVEN IF YOU ACCEPT THIS SOMEWHAT SPECULATIVE
ARGUMENT THAT CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS MAY BE LITIGATING IN
DELAWARE OR THEY MAY BE TRAVELING BETWEEN STATE LINES, I THINK
 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
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 105     Filed 07/20/22     Page 4 of 13

     5
JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
PRO TEM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
510-367-3043
THAT RELEVANCE IS GOING TO BE MINIMAL AND NOT SUFFICIENTLY
PROPORTIONAL TO JUSTIFY DISCOVERY OF A CONTRACT THAT IS
CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY.
THE COURT:  IS YOUR ARGUMENT THAT IT IS UNLIKELY
THERE WOULD BE ANYBODY IN A CLASS WHO WOULD HAVE -- WHOSE
INFORMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED THROUGH FSX AND,
THEREFORE, IT'S NOT AT ISSUE HERE, OR THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH OF
THEM WHO MIGHT BE AFFECTED ON A PROPORTIONALITY ARGUMENT TO
MAKE THIS -- MAYBE YOU CAN CLARIFY FOR ME EXACTLY WHAT YOUR
ARGUMENT IS.
MR. WU:  SURE.  AS I SIT HERE TODAY, I DON'T HAVE THE
EXACT NUMBERS ON WHETHER THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, ANY CALIFORNIA
RESIDENTS WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN LITIGATING IN DELAWARE OR WHO
MOVED TO CALIFORNIA AFTER LITIGATING IN DELAWARE.  I DON'T HAVE
THAT INFORMATION AT MY FINGERPRINTS.  BUT IT JUST STRIKES ME
THAT THE THEORY IS -- IS A FAIRLY SPECULATIVE ONE AND NOT
SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY DISCOVERY.  
AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK ONE THING THAT WASN'T SQUARELY
ADDRESSED IN PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION IS THAT IT SEEMS THAT
THE -- THE CRUX OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE RELATES TO
THOMPSON REUTERS' ALLEGED DISSEMINATION OF PERSONAL
INFORMATION.
AS I READ THE COMPLAINT, I DON'T SEE ALLEGATIONS
PERTAINING TO THERE BEING ANY PROBLEM WITH HOW THOMPSON REUTERS
OBTAINED THE INFORMATION IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  I DON'T SEE --
 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
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 105     Filed 07/20/22     Page 5 of 13

     6
JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
PRO TEM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
510-367-3043
I SEE THE ONLY ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO THE FACT THAT THOMSON
REUTERS ALLEGEDLY DISCLOSED THE INFORMATION.
SO OUR CLIENT'S CONTRACT WITH THOMSON REUTERS ONLY
RELATES TO ISSUE OF THOMSON REUTERS OBTAINING THAT INFORMATION
IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  IT'S NOT GOING TO GO TO THESE ISSUES OF
DISSEMINATION THAT SEEM TO BE AT THE HEART OF THE COMPLAINT.
THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  LET ME HEAR THE RESPONSE TO
THAT.  THERE'S KIND OF A DOUBLE RELEVANCE ISSUE HERE.  ONE IS,
WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHAT FSX DID AND WHAT THE TERMS OF THEIR
CONTRACT ARE, GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM, AND IS IT
SPECULATIVE THAT GATHERING OF INFORMATION FROM THE DELAWARE
COURT IS GOING TO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CLASS.  LET ME
HEAR THE PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO THAT.
MR. WALD:  YES, YOUR HONOR.  THE PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE
IS TWOFOLD.
WITH RESPECT TO THE CLAIMS FOCUSING ON DISSEMINATION,
I THINK THE PLAINTIFFS WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT
CHARACTERIZATION.  AND THE CLASS DEFINITION IN THIS CASE IS ALL
PERSONS RESIDING IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHOSE NAME,
PHOTOGRAPHS, PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION, OR OTHER
PERSONAL DATA IS, OR WAS, INCLUDED IN THE CLEAR DATABASE DURING
THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD.  
SO THE INFORMATION THAT THOMPSON REUTERS COLLECTS,
AGGREGATES, AND MAKES AVAILABLE THROUGH CLEAR IS THE BASIS OF
THE COMPLAINT, INCLUDING INFORMATION THAT IS DISSEMINATED OR
 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
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 105     Filed 07/20/22     Page 6 of 13

     7
JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
PRO TEM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
510-367-3043
INFORMATION THAT MIGHT BE AVAILABLE FOR DISSEMINATION IN THE
FUTURE.
THE COURT:  SO THE THEORY OF THE COMPLAINT IS NOT
JUST THE DISSEMINATION, BUT IT IS THE COLLECTION?
MR. WALD:  I THINK THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT:  AND, THEREFORE, WHATEVER THE METHODS OF
COLLECTION, THE BREADTH OF THE COLLECTION BECOMES RELEVANT?
MR. WALD:  THE BREADTH OF THE COLLECTION, THE METHODS
OF THE COLLECTION, THE INFORMATION THAT IS COLLECTED, AND HOW
THAT INFORMATION IS MADE AVAILABLE, DISSEMINATED, OR MIGHT ONE
DAY BE DISSEMINATED ARE RELEVANT.
THE COURT:  WHAT ABOUT THE REMOTENESS OF NEW JERSEY?
MR. WALD:  WITH RESPECT TO THE FACT THAT THIS
INFORMATION IS ORIGINATING FROM DELAWARE STATE COURTS, YOUR
HONOR, PLAINTIFFS DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT REDUCES THE RELEVANCE
FOR TWO REASONS.
FIRST, THE METHODS AND MEANS BY WHICH THOMSON REUTERS
COLLECTS, AGGREGATES, OBTAINS THIS INFORMATION, THE FREQUENCY
WITH WHICH INFORMATION IS UPDATED, THE PRICING AND VALUATION OF
DIFFERENT FORMS OF INFORMATION, ALL OF THIS IS RELEVANT TO
UNDERSTANDING THE THOMPSON REUTERS CLEAR PRODUCT, THE
INFORMATION IT CONTAINS, HOW THEY GO ABOUT OBTAINING IT.
SO PLAINTIFFS BELIEVE THE LICENSING AGREEMENTS THAT
INVOLVE THIS PRODUCT'S OBTAINING INFORMATION THAT IS THEN MADE
AVAILABLE ARE RELEVANT, INDEPENDENT OF WHETHER THE PARTICULAR
 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
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 105     Filed 07/20/22     Page 7 of 13

     8
JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
PRO TEM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
510-367-3043
INFORMATION SUBJECT TO ONE LICENSING AGREEMENT MIGHT
SPECIFICALLY PERTAIN TO INDIVIDUAL CLASS MEMBERS OR NOT.
ON THE SECONDHAND, PLAINTIFFS ALSO DISAGREE IT IS A
SPECULATIVE ARGUMENT THAT INFORMATION ABOUT CALIFORNIANS MIGHT
BE INCLUDED IN FILINGS THAT ORIGINATE FROM DELAWARE STATE
COURTS, AND WE THINK THIS IS A COMMON SENSE ARGUMENT.
CALIFORNIANS CLEARLY LITIGATE IN DELAWARE STATE COURTS AND HAVE
LITIGATED IN DELAWARE STATE COURTS DURING THE CLASS PERIOD, AND
PEOPLE MOVE FROM STATE TO STATE ALL THE TIME.
SO WE WOULD DISAGREE WITH THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE
ARGUMENT ON THE FIRSTHAND, AND WOULD ADDITIONALLY ARGUE THAT
THIS INFORMATION WOULD BE RELEVANT EVEN IF YOU TOOK THE
ARGUMENT ON ITS FACE.
THE COURT:  LET ME ASK YOU, I MEAN, THE COMPLAINT
SEEMS TO BE REALLY FOCUSED ON REUTERS COLLECTING AND SELLING
INFORMATION, MAKING SUBSTANTIAL PROFITS ON THE SALE OF
INFORMATION.  IS THERE -- WHERE IS THERE A CLASS -- A
SUBSTANTIVE CLAIM FOR THE MERE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION
DIVORCED FROM SALES?
MR. WALD:  YOUR HONOR, I THINK THE KEY CONNECTION IS
THAT NONE OF THIS INFORMATION WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR SALE TO
ANY OF THOMPSON REUTERS CUSTOMERS WERE THEY NOT LICENSING THAT
INFORMATION FROM ENTITIES LIKE FSX.
AND SO UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE BY WHICH THOMSON
REUTERS IS COLLECTING THAT INFORMATION IS KEY TO UNDERSTANDING
 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
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 105     Filed 07/20/22     Page 8 of 13

     9
JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
PRO TEM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
510-367-3043
THE CONTOURS OF THE DATABASE AND HOW THEY MIGHT GO ABOUT
DISSEMINATING AND SELLING THAT INFORMATION IN THE FUTURE, WHAT
INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE, HOW IT'S MADE AVAILABLE, WE BELIEVE
THAT IS CLEARLY RELEVANT TO THE CLAIMS IN THIS CASE.
THE COURT:  CAN YOU DETERMINE THE BREADTH AND
CONTOURS OF REUTERS' INFORMATION WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE FSX
CONTRACT?
MR. WALD:  I THINK TO THE EXTENT THAT THE FSX
CONTRACT ILLUMINATES HOW THOMSON REUTERS COLLECTS PARTICULAR
INFORMATION AND THE RELATIVE VALUE OF DIFFERENT PIECES OF
INFORMATION, WHICH PLAINTIFFS BELIEVE IS RELEVANT BOTH TO THEIR
UCL CLAIMS AND TO THEIR UNJUST ENRICHMENT CLAIMS, THE EXISTENCE
OF ADDITIONAL LICENSING AGREEMENTS AND THE CONTOURS OF THOSE
LICENSING AGREEMENTS REMAIN RELEVANT, EVEN IF OTHER INFORMATION
SPEAKS TO THE SAME ISSUE OR AT LEAST TO RELATED ISSUES, AND --
THE COURT:  EXPLAIN TO ME HOW IT IS THAT HOW REUTERS
COLLECTS THE INFORMATION IS RELEVANT IF YOU KNOW WHAT
INFORMATION IT HAS AND THEN WHAT IT DOES WITH IT ONCE IT THAT
IS INFORMATION.  WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF THEY GOT IT
THROUGH ONE VENDOR OR ANOTHER, FOR INSTANCE?
MR. WALD:  I THINK PLAINTIFFS BELIEVE THAT THE MANNER
OF COLLECTION COULD BE RELEVANT TO UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE AT
WHICH THE INFORMATION MIGHT IMPACT THE INTERESTS OF
CALIFORNIANS.  FOR EXAMPLE, YOU COULD IMAGINE BUYING
INFORMATION THAT IS SCRAPED BY A WEB CRAWLER THAT INDIVIDUALS
 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
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 105     Filed 07/20/22     Page 9 of 13

    10
JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
PRO TEM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
510-367-3043
HAVE NO IDEA IS OCCURRING MIGHT BE DIFFERENT FROM BUYING ACCESS
TO INFORMATION THAT INDIVIDUALS HAVE PUBLICLY MADE AVAILABLE,
INTENDING FOR IT TO BE USED IN SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE.
SO SEEING THE SCOPE OF HOW THIS INFORMATION IS
COLLECTED AND REALLY UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THIS
INFORMATION MIGHT BE COLLECTED APPEARS RELEVANT TO
UNDERSTANDING THE PRODUCT AND THE IMPACT THE PRODUCT MIGHT HAVE
ON CONSUMERS AND CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS.
THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  LET ME HEAR BACK FROM MR. WU
THE FLIP SIDE, AND THAT IS YOU USE PROPORTIONALITY.  I'M NOT
SURE WHAT'S --  YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT A BURDEN IN THE TYPICAL
SENSE OF HAVING TO PRODUCE MOUNDS AND MOUNDS OF GIGABYTES OF
DOCUMENTS, BUT IT'S THE BURDEN OF PRODUCING A SENSITIVE
DOCUMENT, BUT THAT SENSITIVITY, I THINK, IS ADDRESSED BY THE
AEO PROTECTIVE ORDER.  
SO I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A
PROPORTIONALITY ARGUMENT.  I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A MAYBE
STRAIGHT RELEVANCE ARGUMENT, AND WHAT HAS BEEN ARTICULATED IS A
RELEVANCE ARGUMENT.  I WILL CONCEDE IT'S NOT DIRECTLY OBVIOUS,
BUT I CAN SEE AN ARGUMENT WHERE IT HAS SOME PROBATIVE VALUE,
AND SOME MAY BE A LITTLE LIGHT ON RELEVANCE.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, I DON'T SEE WHAT THE BURDEN IS.
MR. WU:  YES, YOUR HONOR.  I THINK -- I THINK WHERE
IT GETS INTO THE ISSUE OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND BURDEN IS THAT
WHENEVER THERE IS DISCOVERY OF CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS SOUGHT,
 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
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 105     Filed 07/20/22     Page 10 of 13

    11
JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
PRO TEM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
510-367-3043
THE COURT TYPICALLY ENGAGES IN SOME SORT OF BALANCING, JUST
WEIGHING THE BURDEN OF PRODUCTION VERSUS THE VALUE OF PRODUCING
THAT DOCUMENT, WHETHER TO LITIGANTS OR TO THE PUBLIC, AND I
THINK THAT'S WHAT THE ARGUMENT IS, IS THAT THERE HASN'T BEEN A
SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION OF THE NEED FOR THIS DOCUMENT SUCH
THAT THAT OUTWEIGHS THE DISCLOSURE OF WHAT IS SENSITIVE
INFORMATION FOR OUR CLIENT.
AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOUR HONOR'S QUESTIONS
REGARDING RELEVANCE ARE WELL TAKEN.  IT SEEMS AS THOUGH
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL ALREADY HAS A FAIRLY DECENT UNDERSTANDING
OF HOW THIS INFORMATION WAS GLEANED IN TERMS OF THIS IS
INFORMATION THAT WAS GLEANED FROM DELAWARE STATE COURTS.  THAT
SEEMS ALREADY TO BE THE ONLY INFORMATION IN THIS AGREEMENT THAT
WOULD BE RELEVANT TO ANY CLAIMS AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE.
WHEN IT COMES TO IDENTIFYING WHOSE INFORMATION IS
ACTUALLY IN THE POSSESSION OF THOMPSON REUTERS, THAT'S A
DISCOVERY REQUEST THAT CAN BE MADE TO THOMPSON REUTERS.  I'M
NOT GOING TO CHIME IN ON ANY DISCOVERY DISPUTES THAT MIGHT BE
AVAILABLE THERE, BUT THAT SEEMS LIKE AN APPROPRIATE DISCOVERY
REQUEST FOR THOMPSON REUTERS, AT WHICH POINT THOMSON REUTERS
COULD ASSERT THEIR OWN OBJECTIONS, OR THEY COULD DISCLOSE THE
IDENTITIES OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO THEY HAVE RECEIVED.  AND AT
THAT POINT, PLAINTIFFS WOULD HAVE THE FULL CONTOURS AND
IDENTITIES OF THE CLASS.
SO ALL OF THAT INFORMATION, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, COULD
 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
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 105     Filed 07/20/22     Page 11 of 13

    12
JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
PRO TEM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
510-367-3043
BE READILY AVAILABLE FROM DISCOVERY WITHOUT DISCLOSURE OF WHAT
IS ESSENTIALLY AN OUT-OF-STATE CONTRACT.
THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  WELL, I FIND THAT THE -- THAT
THE STANDARD OF RELEVANCE, WHICH IS RATHER LENIENT UNDER RULE
26, HAS BEEN MET HERE, THAT THE CONCERNS OF FSX AS THE
PERMISSIVE INTERVENOR HERE, WHILE VALID, ARE ADEQUATELY MET BY
A TIGHT PROTECTIVE ORDER, AEO PROTECTIVE ORDER.
I WILL NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT LIKE TURNING OVER
SENSITIVE INFORMATION TO A COMPETITOR OR SOURCE CODE
INFORMATION TO A COMPETITOR.  IT IS SENSITIVE, BUT IT IS NOT
THE KIND OF SITUATION THAT WARRANTS THE KIND OF EXTREME CONCERN
THAT WE OFTEN SEE.  NOT TO DISCOUNT THAT CONCERN, BUT IN THIS
CASE, I FIND THERE'S ENOUGH HERE TO REQUIRE THE PRODUCTION, BUT
UNDER AEO UNTIL FURTHER ORDER.
SO THAT'S THE ORDER OF THE COURT.  AND PERMISSIVE
INTERVENTION FOR THIS VERY LIMITED PURPOSE OF SECURING THE
CONFIDENTIAL NATURE OF THE SERVICE AGREEMENT IS GRANTED IN THAT
REGARD.  SO THAT'S THE STATUS OF THIS CASE.  SO THANK YOU,
EVERYONE.
MR. WALD:  THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
MR. WU:  THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.  
(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 2:04 P.M.) 
 
 
 
 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
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 105     Filed 07/20/22     Page 12 of 13

    13
JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
PRO TEM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
510-367-3043
STATE OF CALIFORNIA    ) 
                       )    SS 
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) 
 
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IN THE 
WITHIN-ENTITLED CAUSE WAS TAKEN AT THE TIME AND PLACE HEREIN 
NAMED; THAT THE TRANSCRIPT IS A TRUE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS 
AS REPORTED BY ME, A DULY CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER AND A 
DISINTERESTED PERSON, AND WAS THEREAFTER TRANSCRIBED INTO 
TYPEWRITING BY COMPUTER. 
I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NOT INTERESTED IN THE 
OUTCOME OF THE SAID ACTION, NOR CONNECTED WITH, NOR RELATED TO 
ANY OF THE PARTIES IN SAID ACTION, NOR TO THEIR RESPECTIVE 
COUNSEL. 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND THIS 
8TH DAY OF JULY, 2022. 
 
 
                 _________________________________ 
                 JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR NO. 5435 
                 STATE OF CALIFORNIA           
 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
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 105     Filed 07/20/22     Page 13 of 13

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.105.0.pdf

Size

268,037 bytes

SHA-256

7b427b55cb43f9ffbc7c12eb5485c8b3c35bd3e626c8cafde066c43d90dfd628

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.105.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)