Sponchiado v. Apple Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs, Christian Sponchiado and Courtney Davis, sued Apple Inc. on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The parties anticipated producing documents, testimony, and other information containing confidential, proprietary, trade-secret, or commercially sensitive information during discovery and required disclosures. They stipulated to entry of a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which allows a court to restrict discovery to protect against harm from disclosure. The court found good cause and entered the order.

Confidentiality categories and permitted use

The order covers discovery materials produced, disclosed, or generated in the case, including testimony, transcripts, tangible things, electronically stored information, copies, excerpts, summaries, compilations, and presentations that reveal protected information. Protected material may be used only for this case or a related appellate proceeding, and not for other litigation, patent matters, business purposes, or competitive purposes.

A producing party may designate material as “CONFIDENTIAL” if it contains or reflects confidential, proprietary, or commercially sensitive information. It may use the “CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” designation for extremely confidential or sensitive information whose disclosure could cause economic harm or significant competitive disadvantage. The order identifies nonpublic trade secrets, pricing and financial information, sales information, business plans, marketing strategies, product-development information, engineering and testing documents, and employee information as examples that may warrant the higher designation.

Access and disclosure limits

“CONFIDENTIAL” material may generally be disclosed to outside counsel and their staff, up to three representatives of the receiving party who need the information for the case, qualified outside experts or consultants, court reporters and videographers, the court and court personnel, certain trial-support personnel, mock jurors who agree to confidentiality, mediators and their staffs, and persons approved in writing by the producing party. Some recipients must sign an agreement to be bound by the order.

“CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” material may generally be disclosed to qualified outside counsel and staff, up to three in-house counsel in the circumstances specified by the order, qualified experts or consultants, court reporters and videographers, the court and court personnel, certain trial-support personnel, mediators and their staffs, and persons approved in writing by the producing party. Arguments and materials derived from this category may be shown to qualifying mock jurors, but original materials produced by another party may not be shown to them.

Protected material must be stored securely in the United States. The order prohibits exporting it outside the United States or releasing it to a foreign national, even within the United States. The restrictions do not apply in specified circumstances, including when the information is publicly known through no fault of the receiving party, was lawfully obtained independently, was previously provided without a confidentiality obligation, is disclosed with the producing party’s consent, or is disclosed under a court order.

Outside experts and challenges

Before the plaintiffs disclose Apple-protected material to a covered outside expert or consultant, they must provide Apple with information about that person, including the person’s name, curriculum vitae, present employer and title, employment and consulting relationships, relevant patent applications, and cases in which the person testified during the preceding five years. Apple may request additional information about the person’s professional activities. The plaintiffs must also provide notice of certain changes in the person’s involvement with smartphone technology or related intellectual-property assets during the case and for two years after final resolution, including appeals.

Apple has fourteen days to object in writing for good cause. The parties must then meet and confer, meaning they must attempt in good faith to resolve the dispute without court intervention. If the dispute is not resolved, Apple has seven days after that meeting to seek relief from the court. Protected material may not be disclosed to the person while a timely objection is pending. The order also provides procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, but the material remains protected while the challenge is pending unless the designation is withdrawn or the court rules otherwise.

Other provisions

A party receiving a subpoena or similar request for protected material must promptly notify the producing party and provide an opportunity to seek protection. Protected material may not be filed publicly without the producing party’s written permission or a court order, and a party seeking to file such material under seal must follow the Northern District of California’s local rules.

The order provides that inadvertent production of privileged or work-product material does not waive the privilege if the producing party promptly requests its return. It also provides procedures for correcting an inadvertent failure to designate material and for responding to unauthorized disclosure. Within ninety days after final disposition, each party must return or securely destroy the producing party’s discovery material, subject to limited archival retention by outside counsel. The confidentiality obligations continue after the case ends, and the court retains jurisdiction to resolve disputes about the protective order.

The order also limits discovery from experts to materials actually relied on by a testifying expert and preserves protections for draft reports and certain expert communications. It states that the protective order does not change the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the local rules, or other applicable discovery requirements.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered the stipulated protective order on May 6, 2020. This order addresses the handling and disclosure of discovery materials; the provided text does not decide the merits of the underlying claims.