1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 BAYSIDE SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 21-cv-08738-PJH 8 Plaintiff,

9 v. ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE

10 ANTONIO AVILA, et al., ORDER 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 37 12

13 14 Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for entry of a protective order. The matter is 15 fully briefed and suitable for decision without oral argument. Having read the parties’ 16 papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, the 17 court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for entry of a protective order. 18 BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff Bayside Solutions, Inc. filed this action against Antonio Avila, Armando 20 Avila, and RecruitGigs (collectively, “defendants”). Dkt. 1. Plaintiff raises eight causes of 21 action against defendants including misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend 22 Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1836, et seq.) and under California’s Uniform Trade 23 Secrets Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3426, et seq.). 24 Plaintiff filed its complaint on November 11, 2021, and its amended complaint on 25 April 11, 2022. Dkt. 1; Dkt. 33. On July 21, 2022, plaintiff moved for entry of a protective 26 order. Dkt. 37. On the same day, the parties filed a stipulation for an abbreviated 27 briefing schedule, citing the need to conduct discovery before their September 2022 1 schedule and ordered the case submitted on August 2, 2022. Dkt. 39. 2 DISCUSSION 3 A. Legal Standard 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides that “[t]he court may, for good 5 cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, 6 oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following . . . 7 requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial 8 information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 26(c)(1)(G). 10 B. Analysis 11 The parties agree that the Northern District’s Model Protective Order for Litigation 12 Involving Patents, Highly Sensitive Confidential Information and/or Trade Secrets is 13 instructive. Indeed, plaintiff asks the court to enter a proposed protective order that is 14 nearly identical to the district’s model protective order. “The Northern District’s model 15 protective order is presumptively reasonable.” ESC-Toy Ltd. v. Sony Interactive Ent. 16 LLC, No. 21CV00778EMCDMR, 2022 WL 1714627, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2022) 17 (internal quotation marks omitted); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Chung, No. 19-CV-07562-PJH, 18 2020 WL 4505509, at *15 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2020) (same). Still, defendants take issue 19 with the proposed model order’s language permitting the designation of materials as 20 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” (“AEO”). 21 “As a general rule, the public is permitted access to litigation documents and 22 information produced during discovery.” In re Roman Cath. Archbishop of Portland in 23 Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). A party 24 seeking to protect documents from the public must demonstrate good cause exists. See 25 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003). “For good 26 cause to exist, the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific 27 prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Phillips ex rel. Estates of 1 However, at this juncture, when no document has been submitted in conjunction 2 with a public filing, the question is simply whether plaintiff should be able to designate 3 documents containing its trade secrets as AEO. Plaintiff has demonstrated that the 4 disclosure of its trade secrets and confidential business information to defendants could 5 result in competitive harm. The law gives a court “broad latitude to grant protective 6 orders to prevent disclosure of materials for many types of information, including, but not 7 limited to, trade secrets or other confidential research, development, or commercial 8 information.” Id. at 1211. Plaintiff anticipates the need to disclose financial information, 9 customer names, employee lists, business proposals, and business pitches. Dkt. 37 at 5; 10 Dkt. 41 at 2. Courts have found the disclosure of such information may result in 11 competitive harm. See In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed. Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008); In 12 re Google Location Hist. Litig., No. 5:18-cv-05062-EJD, 514 F.Supp.3d 1147, 1162 (N.D. 13 Cal. Jan. 25, 2021). 14 While plaintiff has not yet designated any materials as AEO, pursuant to the 15 protective order, “[a]ny Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of confidentiality 16 at any time.” Dkt. 41-2 at 7. As such, the protective order will not prejudice defendants. 17 CONCLUSION 18 The court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for entry of its proposed protective order 19 which should be filed as a standalone document. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: August 9, 2022 22 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

23 United States District Judge

24 25 26 27