Splunk Inc. v. Cribl, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 10 SPLUNK INC., 11 Plaintiff, No. C 22-07611 WHA 12 v.

CRIBL, INC. and CLINT SHARP, ORDER RE TODAY’S RULINGS 14 Defendants. 15 Te a 16 As ruled on the record, plaintiff's motion for entry of final judgment as to plaintiff's 3 17 patent claims (counts I-V) under Rule 54(b) was DENIED. Rule 54(b) allows a district court to 18 enter final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all claims in a multiclaim action when 19 there is no just reason for delay. When making this determination, the district court must 20 consider judicial administrative interests and the equities involved. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. 21 Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980). At this stage, trial in this action is less than six months 22 away. The entry of partial final judgment would all but ensure two simultaneous appellate 23 proceedings and could lead to additional separate trials and/or retrials. That would serve the 24 interests of neither this Court nor the Federal Circuit — nor the parties, for that matter. 25 Meanwhile, as ruled on the record, defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings 26 under Rule 12(c) as to plaintiffs claims for tortious interference with prospective business 27 relations under California law (count XIID and violations of California’s Unfair Competition 28 Law (count XIV) was DENIED. Plaintiff must allege one or more wrongful acts to support

1 these claims. According to defendants, claims based on wrongful acts alleged by plaintiff are 2 preempted by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (““CUTSA”) and the Copyright Act, 3 and they are otherwise inadequately pleaded. True, CUTSA and the Copyright Act can 4 preempt claims based on wrongful acts, but the claims based on the wrongful acts alleged here 5 may not be preempted when read in the light most favorable to the non-movant. The 6 (adequately pleaded) complaint accounts for several ways in which defendants’ conduct could 7 have been wrongful, which are being elaborated and ventilated in discovery that is close to 8 closed. The judge was wary of prematurely dismissing these fact-intensive claims. 9 Finally, with respect to the discovery dispute, as ruled on the record, plaintiffs motion to 10 produce a document redacted for privilege was DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to moving again 11 on a better record. Any future motion for production involving privilege must be in the form 12 of a standard 35-day motion, with chambers copies sent to the judge well before the hearing — 5 13 including all exhibits — to avoid delays like we experienced at the hearing today. IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 || Dated: October 26, 2023. Pee 18 ATS IN ILLIAM ALSUP 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28