Silicon Genesis Corporation v. EV Group E.Thallner GmbH

Background

Defendant EV Group E.Thallner GmbH moved for a protective order. It sought a modified version of the Northern District of California’s model patent-litigation protective order, which provides two confidentiality levels: Confidential and Highly Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only (AEO). Plaintiff Silicon Genesis Corporation sought the court’s standard protective order, which provides only a Confidential designation.

The court had temporarily imposed the two-level order to facilitate the parties’ scheduled mediation. After reviewing the parties’ written submissions, the court determined that oral argument was unnecessary and vacated the March 30, 2023 hearing.

Court’s Analysis

A protective order limits how information obtained in discovery may be used or disclosed. The court concluded that EV Group had not shown good cause—a legally sufficient factual basis—for an AEO designation. EV Group did not explain why its sales data and financial statements needed to be restricted to Silicon Genesis’s outside counsel, rather than protected under the standard Confidential designation. Under that designation, Silicon Genesis’s employees would have to sign an acknowledgment agreeing to be bound by the protective order.

The court also found that EV Group had not demonstrated that patents or trade secrets were at issue or that Silicon Genesis was a competitor. The court therefore found the cases EV Group cited distinguishable. In addition, the parties’ license agreement, which allowed Silicon Genesis to audit EV Group’s financial records through an accounting firm and barred that firm from disclosing confidential information to Silicon Genesis, did not establish good cause. The agreement did not purport to govern litigation between the parties.

Ruling and Next Steps

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied EV Group’s motion. The parties were ordered to file by March 28, 2023, either a stipulated standard protective order with the declaration required by the court’s standing order or, if they could not agree, a joint discovery-dispute letter brief. The March 23, 2023 further case-management conference was to proceed as scheduled. The order disposed of Docket No. 36.