Proofpoint, Inc. v. Vade Secure, Incorporated

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISION 7 8 PROOFPOINT, INC., et al., Case No. 19-cv-04238-MMC (RMI)

9 Plaintiffs,

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS

10 v. FOR RECONSIDERATION AND

MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE

11 VADE SECURE, INCORPORATED, et al., ORDER 12 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 121, 128, 145, 146

13 14 Now pending before the court are Defendants’ motion (dkt. 121) for reconsideration of a 15 previous court order (dkt. 112) directing the parties to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules 16 of Civil Procedure, rather than under the evidentiary exchange procedures of the Hague 17 Convention of 1970, as well as Defendants’ motion (dkts. 128, 145) for a protective order barring 18 discovery until such time that Plaintiffs have “adequately identified the purported trade secrets that 19 have allegedly been misappropriated.” See Joint Ltr. Br. of March 30, 2020 (dkt. 145) at 1. For the 20 reasons discussed below, both of Defendants’ motions are denied. 21 …