Amazon.com, Inc. v. Personal Web Technologies, LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 16, 2023
• Docket: 5:18-cv-00767
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN RE PERSONALWEB Case No. 18-md-02834-BLF TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, ET AL. PATENT Case No. 5:18-cv-00767-BLF 8 LITIGATION. Case No. 5:18-cv-05619-BLF

9 ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION OF AMAZON.COM, INC., 10 AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., AND TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC. FOR 11 RELIEF FROM PROTECTIVE ORDER

12 Re: Dkt. No. 854

13 The background of this case is set forth in numerous previous orders and will not be 14 repeated here. Now before the Court is Amazon’s administrative motion seeking limited relief 15 from the Protective Order in this case so that it may use certain discovery produced in this case to 16 oppose anti-SLAPP motions to dismiss filed in a state court action concerning the PersonalWeb 17 receivership. Dkt. 854. Oppositions to Amazon’s administrative motion were filed by third 18 parties Claria Innovations, LLC and Europlay Capital Advisors, LLC (Dkt. 855); Brilliant Digital 19 Entertainment, Inc. and Monto Holdings Pty Ltd. (Dkt. 856); and Plaintiff PersonalWeb (Dkt. 20 857). This Order will refer collectively to the parties who filed oppositions to Amazon’s 21 administrative motion as the “Opposing Parties.” 22 The Opposing Parties first argue that Amazon’s administrative motion is procedurally 23 improper because this is a discovery dispute and should have been brought to the Court in the 24 form of a joint submission pursuant to the undersigned’s Civil and Discovery Referral Matters 25 Standing Order. See Dkt. 855 at 1-2; Dkt. 856 at 2; Dkt. 857 at 2-4. The Court agrees. 26 Administrative motions are limited to “miscellaneous administrative matters, not otherwise 27 1 Civ. L.R. 7-11. Amazon’s motion does not fall into those categories and instead seeks relief from 2 provisions of the Protective Order—a discovery dispute. However, the Opposing Parties’ 3 suggestion that Amazon gained an advantage by raising this dispute as an administrative motion 4 rather than in a joint discovery submission is not well-founded. An administrative motion and 5 opposition are each limited to five pages. Id. Similarly, under this Court’s standing order, a joint 6 letter brief would have been limited to ten pages. Standing Order § 8. In any event, Amazon and 7 the Opposing Parties have now had a reasonable opportunity to present their arguments in 8 connection with Amazon’s request for relief from the Protective Order, and the Court will 9 therefore entertain the merits of Amazon’s motion. The parties are cautioned that they must 10 ensure that future filings comply with the Civil Local Rules and this Court’s standing orders. The 11 Court can resolve this discovery dispute without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 12 The Protective Order in this case provides that protected material may be used only for 13 purposes of this action. Dkt. 290 § 7.1. The Protective Order also provides that it is subject to 14 modification. Id. § 15.1. 15 The Ninth Circuit “strongly favors access to discovery materials to meet the needs of 16 parties engaged in collateral litigation.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 17 1131 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 475 (9th Cir. 18 1992)). This preference is driven by “interests of judicial economy” served by “avoiding the 19 wasteful duplication of discovery.” Id. at 1131. However, a court should not automatically grant 20 a request for modification of a protective order. Id. at 1132. “As an initial matter, the collateral 21 litigant must demonstrate the relevance of the protected discovery to the collateral proceedings 22 and its general discoverability therein.” Id. The court should then consider “other factors in 23 addition to the relevance of the protected discovery to the collateral litigation,” such as weighing 24 “the countervailing reliance interest of the party opposing modification against the policy of 25 avoiding duplicative discovery.” Id. at 1133 (citing Beckman, 966 F.2d at 475). The Foltz court 26 noted, however, that “reliance will be less with a blanket [protective] order, because it is by its 27 nature overinclusive.” Id. 1 a “rough estimate of relevance,” and “the only issue it determines is whether the protective order 2 || will bar the collateral litigants from gaining access to the discovery already conducted.” Id. at 3 1132-33. “Even if the issuing court modifies the protective order, it does not decide whether the 4 |} collateral litigants will ultimately obtain the discovery materials” because “disputes over the 5 ultimate discoverability of specific materials covered by the protective order must be resolved by 6 || the collateral courts.” Id. at 1133. Thus, “parties to the collateral litigation” may “raise specific 7 || relevance and privilege objections” in that litigation. Id. 8 The Court finds that as to the specific categories of documents identified in Amazon’s 9 || proposed order on its administrative motion at Dkt. 854-6, Amazon has made the necessary 10 || showing of relevance to and general discoverability in the collateral proceeding. Accordingly, 11 modification of the Protective Order is appropriate here. In granting Amazon’s motion, this Court 12 || makes no comment on whether any specific documents are discoverable or admissible in the state 13 || court receivership action because those determinations are for the state court. See id. at 1133 (‘If 14 || the protective order is modified, the collateral courts may freely control the discovery processes in 3 || the controversies before them without running up against the protective order of another court’). 16 SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: March 16, 2023 1g Seesomn ye SUSAN VAN KEULEN 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28