Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 858 Filed 03/16/23 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN RE PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, ET AL. PATENT
`LITIGATION.
`
`Case No. 18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No. 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`Case No. 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE
`MOTION OF AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., AND
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC. FOR
`RELIEF FROM PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 854
`
`
`
`
`
`The background of this case is set forth in numerous previous orders and will not be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`repeated here. Now before the Court is Amazon’s administrative motion seeking limited relief
`
`from the Protective Order in this case so that it may use certain discovery produced in this case to
`
`oppose anti-SLAPP motions to dismiss filed in a state court action concerning the PersonalWeb
`
`receivership. Dkt. 854. Oppositions to Amazon’s administrative motion were filed by third
`
`parties Claria Innovations, LLC and Europlay Capital Advisors, LLC (Dkt. 855); Brilliant Digital
`
`Entertainment, Inc. and Monto Holdings Pty Ltd. (Dkt. 856); and Plaintiff PersonalWeb (Dkt.
`
`857). This Order will refer collectively to the parties who filed oppositions to Amazon’s
`
`administrative motion as the “Opposing Parties.”
`
`
`
`The Opposing Parties first argue that Amazon’s administrative motion is procedurally
`
`improper because this is a discovery dispute and should have been brought to the Court in the
`
`form of a joint submission pursuant to the undersigned’s Civil and Discovery Referral Matters
`
`Standing Order. See Dkt. 855 at 1-2; Dkt. 856 at 2; Dkt. 857 at 2-4. The Court agrees.
`
`Administrative motions are limited to “miscellaneous administrative matters, not otherwise
`
`governed by a federal statute, Federal Rule, local rule, or standing order of the assigned Judge.”
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 858 Filed 03/16/23 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Civ. L.R. 7-11. Amazon’s motion does not fall into those categories and instead seeks relief from
`
`provisions of the Protective Order—a discovery dispute. However, the Opposing Parties’
`
`suggestion that Amazon gained an advantage by raising this dispute as an administrative motion
`
`rather than in a joint discovery submission is not well-founded. An administrative motion and
`
`opposition are each limited to five pages. Id. Similarly, under this Court’s standing order, a joint
`
`letter brief would have been limited to ten pages. Standing Order § 8. In any event, Amazon and
`
`the Opposing Parties have now had a reasonable opportunity to present their arguments in
`
`connection with Amazon’s request for relief from the Protective Order, and the Court will
`
`therefore entertain the merits of Amazon’s motion. The parties are cautioned that they must
`
`ensure that future filings comply with the Civil Local Rules and this Court’s standing orders. The
`
`Court can resolve this discovery dispute without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).
`
`
`
`The Protective Order in this case provides that protected material may be used only for
`
`purposes of this action. Dkt. 290 § 7.1. The Protective Order also provides that it is subject to
`
`modification. Id. § 15.1.
`
`
`
`The Ninth Circuit “strongly favors access to discovery materials to meet the needs of
`
`parties engaged in collateral litigation.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122,
`
`1131 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 475 (9th Cir.
`
`1992)). This preference is driven by “interests of judicial economy” served by “avoiding the
`
`wasteful duplication of discovery.” Id. at 1131. However, a court should not automatically grant
`
`a request for modification of a protective order. Id. at 1132. “As an initial matter, the collateral
`
`litigant must demonstrate the relevance of the protected discovery to the collateral proceedings
`
`and its general discoverability therein.” Id. The court should then consider “other factors in
`
`addition to the relevance of the protected discovery to the collateral litigation,” such as weighing
`
`“the countervailing reliance interest of the party opposing modification against the policy of
`
`avoiding duplicative discovery.” Id. at 1133 (citing Beckman, 966 F.2d at 475). The Foltz court
`
`noted, however, that “reliance will be less with a blanket [protective] order, because it is by its
`
`nature overinclusive.” Id.
`
`Under the foregoing analysis, the district court that issued the protective order makes only
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 858 Filed 03/16/23 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`a “rough estimate of relevance,” and “the only issue it determines is whether the protective order
`
`will bar the collateral litigants from gaining access to the discovery already conducted.” Id. at
`
`1132-33. “Even if the issuing court modifies the protective order, it does not decide whether the
`
`collateral litigants will ultimately obtain the discovery materials” because “disputes over the
`
`ultimate discoverability of specific materials covered by the protective order must be resolved by
`
`the collateral courts.” Id. at 1133. Thus, “parties to the collateral litigation” may “raise specific
`
`relevance and privilege objections” in that litigation. Id.
`
`
`
`The Court finds that as to the specific categories of documents identified in Amazon’s
`
`proposed order on its administrative motion at Dkt. 854-6, Amazon has made the necessary
`
`showing of relevance to and general discoverability in the collateral proceeding. Accordingly,
`
`modification of the Protective Order is appropriate here. In granting Amazon’s motion, this Court
`
`makes no comment on whether any specific documents are discoverable or admissible in the state
`
`court receivership action because those determinations are for the state court. See id. at 1133 (“If
`
`the protective order is modified, the collateral courts may freely control the discovery processes in
`
`the controversies before them without running up against the protective order of another court”).
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: March 16, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SUSAN VAN KEULEN
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`