Cao

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TESLA, INC., Case No. 19-cv-01463-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS

v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 44, 46, 51, 56, 59, 69

GUANGZHI CAO,

Defendant.

1. XMotors’s motion to quash is granted in part and denied in part. XMotors must produce the requested source code and source code logs, and these topics may be discussed in the 30(b)(6) deposition. This information is relevant to Tesla’s claim that Cao disclosed Tesla’s trade secrets to XMotors. Of course, this information is subject to the protective order in this case. Tesla and XMotors are instructed to meet and confer regarding whether a neutral third- party should examine the source code in the first instance. XMotors must also produce the requested forensic images, but it does not need to provide images of the computers of persons not employed by XMotors. Tesla has not demonstrated that XMotors has legal control over those computers. See In re Citric Acid Litigation, 191 F.3d 1090, 1107 (9th Cir. 1999). XMotors need not produce the grand jury materials related to Mr. Zhang. The relevance of these materials to Tesla’s claims against Cao is speculative…