Case 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 61 Filed 04/05/17 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.16-cv-06925-LHK (SVK)
`
`
`
`ORDER RE PROTECTIVE ORDER
`Re: Dkt. No. 60
`
`TWILIO, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TELESIGN CORPORATION,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 61 Filed 04/05/17 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`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
`1.2 Designated Material may be used by a
`Receiving Party only for purposes of litigating
`or defending this Action, subject to the
`following exception: such material may
`additionally be used in any of the CDCA
`Actions as though designated and produced in
`such action, unless a producing party (including
`third parties) elects to limit the use of produced
`material to a particular action, and provided
`such use is for the purpose of litigating
`(including defending) such action and is
`otherwise in compliance with the order(s)
`entered in such action that apply to material
`bearing the same designation. (Ex. A at § 1.2)
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`TeleSign’s Proposal
`1.2 Designated Material may be used by a
`Receiving Party only for purposes of litigating
`or defending this Action, subject to the
`following exception: such material may
`additionally be used in any of the CDCA
`Actions as though designated and produced in
`such action, provided such use is for the
`purpose of litigating (including defending) such
`action and is otherwise in compliance with the
`order(s) entered in such action that apply to
`material bearing the same designation. Nothing
`in this provision 1.2 alters, in the CDCA cases,
`a Party’s (or third party’s) bases to challenge
`the admissibility or use of such Material in the
`CDCA cases. (Ex. B at § 1.2)
`
`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
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 61 Filed 04/05/17 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Dated: 4/5/2017
`
`
`
`
`SUSAN VAN KEULEN
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`3
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`