Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Garmin International, Inc., et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CELLSPIN SOFT, INC., Case No. 17-cv-05934-YGR (KAW)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TERMINATING MOTION TO 9 v. ADOPT ADDENDUM TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER 10 GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 265 11 Defendants.

12 13 On May 5, 2026, Defendant Garmin International, Inc. and Fossil Group, Inc. filed the 14 instant motion to adopt an addendum to the existing protective order. (Defs.’ Mot. to Amend, Dkt. 15 No. 265.) Specifically, Defendants seek to add an addendum permitting the use of protected 16 materials “obtained in this litigation in related actions brought by Plaintiff Cellspin Soft, Inc. 17 against entities related to Defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 18 Texas.” (Id. at 1.) Defendants assert that the related actions concern the same patents and 19 functionalities that were determined to be non-infringing in this case. (Id.) On May 8, 2026, the 20 motion was referred to this Court. (Dkt. No. 266.) 21 The Court TERMINATES the motion to adopt an addendum because it is an improper 22 discovery motion. Rather, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer pursuant to its 23 standing order. (See Judge Westmore Standing Order ¶ 13.) If the parties are unable to resolve 24 the matter on their own, the parties shall file a joint discovery letter. (See Judge Westmore 25 Standing Order ¶ 14.) The Court observes, however, that when considering whether a protective 26 order should be modified to allow access to covered materials, it appears that the Ninth Circuit 27 “strongly favors access to discovery materials to meet the needs of parties engaged in collateral 1 interests of judicial economy by avoiding the wasteful duplication of discovery.” Foltz v. State 2 || Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Blum v. Merrill Lynch 3 || Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc., 712 F.3d 1349, 1355 (9th Cir. 2013) (If any properly protected 4 || discovery is relevant to the collateral suits, the district court should have modified the protective 5 order in the interest of avoiding duplicative discovery.”) (internal quotation omitted). Thus, it 6 || appears that an addendum would be appropriate if Defendants are correct that the instant litigation 7 || and the E.D. Texas litigation have significant overlap, such that the protected materials are 8 || relevant in the latter action. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: May 14, 2026

M DIS A. WESTMORE = 12 Unitéd States Magistrate Judge

13 14

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28