Neuron Space Corporation v. Blue Cubed, LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 17, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-06649
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NEURON SPACE CORPORATION, Case No. 25-cv-06649-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY 9 v. LETTER RE AEO ACCESS

10 BLUE CUBED, LLC, Docket No. 87 11 Defendant.

12 13 In resolving the parties’ prior discovery dispute regarding whether Blue Cubed’s outside 14 counsel Ms. Peacock and her firm, Peacock LLC, could access AEO materials, the Court ruled:

15 “Ms. Peacock and her firm may access AEO materials if Ms. Peacock submits a declaration confirming Blue Cubed’s representations about 16 her role and further stating that she and her firm will not work for Blue Cubed in a business capacity or otherwise provide Blue Cubed 17 with business advice in the future. In order to obtain access to the AEO information, Blue Cubed must submit that declaration to Neuron 18 for approval. If there is a dispute, the parties shall submit their positions to the Court via a brief joint letter for resolution.” 19 Dkt. No. 84.

20 Ms. Peacock has now submitted a declaration confirming that her work to date for Blue 21 Cubed has been solely in a legal capacity and that “neither [Ms. Peacock], nor Peacock Law P.C., 22 will work with Blue Cubed, LLC in a business capacity or otherwise provide Blue Cubed, LLC 23 with business advice in the future.” Dkt. No. 87-1. 24 Neuron contends that this declaration is insufficient to allow Ms. Peacock access to AEO 25 materials because Ms. Peacock offers business advice and mentorship to “many companies in the 26 space industry in which Neuron operates.” Dkt. No. 87 at 1. Neuron argues that Ms. Peacock 27 should be denied AEO access unless she is restricted from providing business advice to anyone in 1 the space industry. 2 Neuron provides no authority to support such a sweeping prohibition. Brown Bag instructs 3 courts to “examine the factual circumstances of any counsel’s relationship to the party demanding 4 || access.” Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1992) (emphasis 5 added). Ms. Peacock’s declaration addresses the core concern in Brown Bag of inadvertent 6 disclosure when counsel is involved in both a party’s legal matters and its competitive decision- 7 making. While there may be rare circumstances where the risk of inadvertent disclosure is so high g that a restriction based on potential disclosure to third-party competitors is warranted, that case is 9 not presented here. Compare Layne Christensen Co. v. Purolite Co., 271 F.R.D. 240, 250 (D. 10 Kan. 2010) (no AEO access for non-lawyer co-plaintiff and co-inventor due to risk of inadvertent use of the AEO material in his future research and commercial consulting with competitors). Section 7.1 of the Protective Order states that a Receiving Party may use Protected Material “only E for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle this litigation.” Dkt. No. 86, para 7.1. As Blue = Cubed notes, if Ms. Peacock used Neuron’s confidential material to aid a third-party competitor, 4 she would violate the protective order and be subject to sanctions. 15 Ms. Peacock’s declaration, along with the protections provided by the Protective Order, are 16 sufficient to address Neuron’s concerns of disclosure. Ms. Peacock and her firm may access the M7 AEO materials. Z 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 |! Dated: 3/17/2026 22 23 24 EDW. M. CHEN United States District Judge 25 26 27 28