1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, Case No. 22-cv-03041-JSC

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: APPLE’S MOTION FOR A

9 v. PROTECTIVE ORDER

10 APPLE, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 124 Defendant. 11

12 13 Apple has moved for summary judgment on Scramoge’s patent infringement claims on the 14 grounds that it has a license to the patents. (Dkt. No. 126.) Now pending before the Court is a 15 joint discovery letter regarding Apple’s insistence that the license agreements be shown in 16 unredacted form only to Scramoge’s outside counsel, and that Scramoge’s designated 17 representatives only be allowed to review particular paragraphs Apple deems relevant. (Dkt. No. 18 124.) 19 Upon a showing of “good cause,” a court may “protect a party or person from annoyance, 20 embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” in discovery by “requiring that trade 21 secret or other confidential . . . commercial information not be revealed, or be revealed only in a 22 specified way.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Apple, as the party seeking the protective order, has the 23 burden of showing that the protection is warranted. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors 24 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002). Generally, good cause requires the moving party to 25 show that specific prejudice or harm will result if the protective order is not issued. Id. “Broad 26 allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy 27 the Rule 26(c) test.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) 1 Apple has shown that it would suffer harm if the license agreements were made public; 2 || indeed, it goes to great lengths to keep them confidential. (Dkt. No. 124-1.) What it has not 3 shown is that it would suffer harm if Scramoge’s three designated representatives—all licensed 4 attorneys—are able to discuss with their outside counsel the entirety of the license agreements 5 || upon which Apple’s motion for summary judgment is based. Other than the amount of 6 || consideration, Apple does not provide an explanation as to how Scramoge could use the license 7 agreement information to Apple’s disadvantage. Accordingly, while Scramoge’s outside counsel 8 may not provide a copy of the license agreements to the three identified client representatives, 9 counsel may discuss and orally disclose all of their terms (except the amount of consideration) 10 || with the Scramoge representatives, assuming the representatives sign an appropriate protective 11 order. 12 This Order disposes of Docket No. 124. 5 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: September 16, 2022

16 ne Seth

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORL

17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28