Splunk Inc. v. Cribl, Inc.
- William Alsup
- 3:22-cv-07611
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Splunk v. Cribl, Judge Alsup denied partial patent judgment, denied defendants’ pleading motion, and denied discovery production without prejudice.
Splunk Inc., Cribl, Inc., and Clint Sharp; the patent, California business-interference, and unfair-competition claims remain subject to the case’s ongoing proceedings, and Splunk may renew the privilege-related discovery request on a better record.
What happened
In Splunk Inc. v. Cribl, Inc., the court denied Splunk’s request to enter final judgment on its five patent claims before the rest of the case was resolved. The court said doing so could create simultaneous appeals and separate trials or retrials, especially because trial was less than six months away.
The court also denied Cribl and Clint Sharp’s request for judgment on the pleadings concerning Splunk’s California claims for interference with prospective business relations and unfair competition. The court found that, at this stage, the alleged wrongful acts might not be preempted by trade-secret or copyright law and that Splunk had adequately pleaded the claims.
The court denied Splunk’s request to produce a document with privilege redactions, but allowed Splunk to raise the issue again on a better record. Judge William Alsup required any renewed production request involving privilege to follow the court’s standard 35-day motion procedure.
The detailed version
- Splunk Inc. v. Cribl, Inc. · No. 3:22-cv-07611
- William Alsup
- Oct. 26, 2023
Background
Splunk asked the court to enter final judgment on its five patent claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), even though other claims remained in the case. Rule 54(b) permits final judgment on fewer than all claims when there is no just reason to delay. The court considered the interests of efficient court administration and fairness to the parties.
Rulings
The court denied Splunk’s Rule 54(b) motion. Trial was less than six months away, and the court concluded that partial final judgment would almost certainly produce two simultaneous appeals. It could also lead to additional separate trials or retrials, which the court said would not serve the interests of the court, the Federal Circuit, or the parties.
The court denied the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) concerning Splunk’s California claim for interference with prospective business relations and its claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law. The defendants argued that the alleged wrongful acts supporting those claims were preempted by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the Copyright Act, and that the claims were inadequately pleaded. The court recognized that those laws can preempt claims based on wrongful acts, but concluded that the alleged acts might not be preempted when the complaint was viewed in the light most favorable to Splunk. The court also found that the complaint adequately described several possible wrongful acts and declined to dismiss the fact-intensive claims prematurely while discovery was nearing completion.
The court denied Splunk’s motion to produce a document that had been redacted on privilege grounds, without prejudice to filing another motion on a better record. Any renewed privilege-related production motion must use the court’s standard 35-day motion procedure, with chambers copies and all exhibits sent to the judge well before the hearing.
Disposition
The Rule 54(b) motion was denied. The defendants’ Rule 12(c) motion was denied. Splunk’s discovery motion was denied without prejudice to moving again on a better record.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.