Trellian Pty, Ltd. v. adMarketplace, Inc.

Background

The underlying dispute concerns internet search traffic involving the domain “macy.com.” Trellian sued adMarketplace, Inc. (AMP) for breach of contract, account stated, and unjust enrichment, seeking $747,711.57, interest, and attorney fees. AMP asserted defenses and counterclaims against Trellian for breach of contract, misappropriation of confidential information, tortious interference with business relations, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

AMP served a subpoena on non-party Resilion, LLC, seeking documents concerning the macy.com domain, communications and contracts with Macy’s and Trellian, and Resilion’s internal communications and strategy documents concerning its Macy’s business. Resilion produced 428 documents, most with redactions. After AMP objected, Resilion removed some redactions but continued to redact information from 323 documents.

AMP moved to compel Resilion to produce unredacted documents. Resilion opposed that motion and cross-moved for a protective order and for attorney fees and costs. The parties submitted 20 sample documents for the court’s in camera review, meaning the court reviewed them privately rather than as part of the public record.

Legal standards

The court explained that discovery generally covers nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. A subpoena to a non-party is subject to those relevance limits, and the court must protect a non-party from undue burden. The court also noted that redactions are generally not allowed merely because the producing party believes information is irrelevant, but a court may permit them for good cause to prevent undue burden or protect sensitive information.

Rulings on the redactions

The court concluded that Resilion had shown good cause for most of its redactions. The redacted material included other clients’ names, actual and projected budget figures, performance metrics, and other business information connected to Macy’s. The court found that AMP had not shown this information was relevant to the claims between AMP and Trellian. It also rejected AMP’s argument that Resilion’s budget figures and performance metrics were needed to calculate AMP’s alleged damages, because AMP had not explained why the necessary information could not be obtained from Macy’s and Trellian.

The court gave additional weight to the fact that AMP and Resilion were direct competitors concerning the macy.com traffic. It found that disclosing highly sensitive commercial information to a direct competitor would create an undue burden for Resilion. The court also found that the attorneys’-eyes-only designation in the protective order did not eliminate the risk of harm because the information was not relevant and AMP was not entitled to it under any designation.

The court made one exception for spreadsheets. Resilion had agreed that it could disclose the column headings in Sample Documents 4 and 15 and other similar spreadsheets, while continuing to withhold the names of proprietary advertising campaigns. The court therefore ordered Resilion to unredact those column headings. Resilion could replace proprietary campaign names with abbreviations such as “Campaign A” or another comparable generic label.

Attorney fees and final disposition

Resilion’s request for attorney fees and costs was denied because Resilion provided neither legal authority nor substantial argument supporting the request.

AMP’s motion to compel was GRANTED IN PART to the extent that Resilion was ordered to reproduce Sample Documents 4 and 15 and other spreadsheets showing the column headings, with generic campaign names as necessary, and was otherwise DENIED. Resilion’s cross-motion was GRANTED IN PART to the extent that Resilion was not required to reproduce unredacted versions of documents other than the specified spreadsheets, and was otherwise DENIED. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the docket entry for AMP’s motion.