Jackson v. LinkedIn Corporation

Background

Jacqueline Jackson and LinkedIn Corporation agreed to seek a two-level protective order governing discovery materials designated either “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” (HC-AEO). Their dispute concerned the conditions for sharing HC-AEO material with an expert.

The proposed Section 7.5(a) required the receiving party, before sharing a producing party’s HC-AEO material with an expert, to identify the expert, provide the expert’s current résumé, identify the expert’s current employer, and disclose the expert’s work during the previous five years.

The Parties’ Positions

Jackson argued that the proposed disclosures would allow LinkedIn to investigate her prospective experts before the expert-disclosure deadline, impose significant time and effort, reveal attorney work product by identifying the material the expert would review, and create delays if LinkedIn objected to an expert.

LinkedIn argued that the requirements appeared in the Northern District of California’s Model Protective Order for Litigation Involving Patents, Highly Sensitive Confidential Information and/or Trade Secrets and were therefore presumptively reasonable. LinkedIn also argued that the requirements were warranted because it expected to produce highly sensitive technical information, including information about the technical functionality of the Insight Tag.

Ruling

The court concluded that, if LinkedIn produces material meeting the parties’ agreed definition of HC-AEO material, LinkedIn should have an opportunity to assess whether disclosure to an opposing expert creates an unacceptable confidentiality risk. The court held that the model-order requirements were presumptively reasonable and rejected Jackson’s argument that complying with them would unfairly prejudice or burden her.

The court adopted LinkedIn’s proposed text for Sections 7.3 and 7.5(a). It cautioned LinkedIn not to over-designate material as HC-AEO when a lesser designation or no designation is warranted. The court also stated that, if Jackson wants to know which entities LinkedIn considers competitors before retaining an expert, LinkedIn should provide that information upon request for purposes of the HC-AEO material it expects to disclose.

The parties were directed to submit a proposed protective order complying with the order by July 22, 2024. The proposed order was also to be modified to reflect the court’s discovery-dispute-resolution procedures. The court resolved the matter without oral argument.