`EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and
`PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL CORP.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`NEARMAP US, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
`ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
`SHORT FORM DISCOVERY MOTION
`REGARDING EAGLE VIEW’S
`“COMPETITIVEINTEL” SLACK
`CHANNEL
`(DOC. NO. 373)
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00283
`
`District Judge Ted Stewart
`
`Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 393 Filed 02/20/24 PageID.19019 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
`CENTRAL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`In this patent infringement case, Defendant Nearmap US, Inc. (“Nearmap”) moves to
`
`compel Plaintiffs Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp.
`
`(collectively, “EagleView”) to produce information from EagleView’s Slack channel1 called
`
`“competitiveintel.”2 EagleView opposes production on grounds of relevance and undue burden.3
`
`
`1 Slack is an electronic communication service allowing users to organize communications in
`“channels” which are labeled by the users, often by the topic of conversation. See, e.g., 73 CAIL
`Annual Institute on Energy Law § 3.03.
`
`2 (Nearmap’s Short Form Disc. Mot. to Compel Produc. of EagleView’s “competitiveintel”
`Slack Channel (“Mot.”), Doc. No. 373.)
`
`3 (Pls.’ Opp’n to Defs.’ Short Form Mot. to Compel Produc. (“Opp’n”) 3, Doc. No. 374.)
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 393 Filed 02/20/24 PageID.19020 Page 2 of 5
`
`Because Nearmap’s requests are overly broad and seek irrelevant information, the motion4 is
`
`denied.5
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Nearmap asserts the entirety of EagleView’s “competitiveintel” Slack channel is relevant
`
`to EagleView’s trade-secret-misappropriation claim and responsive to Nearmap’s requests for
`
`production of documents (“RFPs”) numbers 7 and 13.6 RFP 7 seeks: “All Documents and things
`
`relating to the Accused Products or both Nearmap and (a) the Asserted Patents or (b) the subject
`
`matter of the Asserted Patents, including any marketing or competitive analysis relating to the
`
`Accused Products.”7 RFP 13 seeks: “All Documents and things relating to the market for
`
`products relating to the Asserted Patents and competitors in that market, including the market
`
`share of EagleView.”8
`
`Nearmap contends “EagleView has put at issue whether competitive intelligence gathered
`
`by companies constitutes a trade secret.”9 Nearmap reasons that because EagleView found
`
`purported trade-secret information on a Slack channel used by Nearmap, EagleView’s Slack
`
`4 (Doc. No. 373.)
`
`
`
`5 This motion is addressed on the briefs, as no hearing is necessary. See DUCivR 37-1(b)(5)(B).
`
`6 (Mot. 1, Doc. No. 373.)
`
`7 (Ex. 1 to Mot., Pls.’ First Suppl. Resps. to Certain of Defs.’ Reqs. for Produc. 18, Doc. No.
`373-1.)
`
`8 (Id. at 28.)
`
`9 (Mot. 2, Doc. No. 373.)
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 393 Filed 02/20/24 PageID.19021 Page 3 of 5
`
`channel must also have information relevant to the trade-secret claim.10 In opposition,
`
`EagleView argues it should not be required to produce “the entire contents” of its
`
`competitiveintel Slack channel because Nearmap’s requests seek irrelevant information, are
`
`untimely, and such a production would be unduly burdensome.11
`
`Nearmap’s motion is denied because it has failed to show the entirety of EagleView’s
`
`“competitiveintel” Slack channel is relevant or that ordering its production would be
`
`proportional. Discovery of nonprivileged information is appropriate only to the extent the
`
`information sought is relevant to a claim or defense and “proportional to the needs of the case.”12
`
`In this case, Nearmap’s requests are facially overbroad. As stated above, RFP 7 seeks, in part,
`
`“[a]ll Documents and things relating to the Accused Products.”13 This request, for every
`
`document “related to” the accused product, is overbroad because it refers to a wide variety of
`
`information in EagleView’s possession, custody, or control—without regard to any issues in
`
`disputes in this case. To be relevant under Rule 26(b)(1), a document must relate to a claim or
`
`defense in this case, not to the products at issue.14 Accordingly, Nearmap’s request is facially
`
`overbroad.
`
`
`
`10 (Id.)
`
`11 (Opp’n 3, Doc. No. 374.)
`
`12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Of course, information “need not be admissible in evidence to be
`discoverable.” Id.
`
`13 (Ex. 1 to Mot., Pls.’ First Suppl. Resps. to Certain of Defs.’ Reqs. for Produc. 18, Doc. No.
`373-1.)
`
`14 See, e.g., Doe v. Doe, No. 1:20-cv-01041-SCY-JHR, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178540 at *7
`(D.N.M. Sept. 30, 2023) (unpublished) (“Giving the word its plain meaning, information is
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 393 Filed 02/20/24 PageID.19022 Page 4 of 5
`
`Additionally, Nearmap fails to adequately explain how the contents of EagleView’s
`
`“competitiveintel” Slack channel are relevant to this action, even if the court were to apply some
`
`limiting principle to Nearmap’s request. Nearmap first asserts the contents are relevant because
`
`EagleView sought and obtained information purportedly relevant to EagleView’s trade secret
`
`claim from Nearmap’s Slack channel.15 But this does not mean the inverse is true. As
`
`EagleView points out, it had a particularized basis for seeking information from Nearmap’s
`
`Slack channel: EagleView found an email instructing a Nearmap employee to transmit
`
`EagleView’s purportedly trade-secret information through Nearmap’s Slack channel.16 This
`
`email justified EagleView’s request for information from Nearmap’s Slack channel relevant to
`
`its claim of trade-secret misappropriation. Nearmap does not suggest it has similar information
`
`indicating EagleView transmitted information relevant to any claim or defense through
`
`EagleView’s “competitiveintel” Slack channel.17 Accordingly, Nearmap’s argument is
`
`unpersuasive.
`
`
`relevant when it has a significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand—here, any
`party’s claim or defense.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
`
`15 (Mot. 1, Doc. No. 373.)
`
`16 (Opp’n 2, Doc. No. 374.)
`
`17 Nearmap suggests an EagleView witness indicated the “competitiveintel” Slack channel
`contains information about “competitors and the market” and “likely” contains information about
`Nearmap. (Mot. 2, Doc. No. 373.) Yet this suggestion runs headlong into the twin problems of
`overbreadth and irrelevance. Nearmap is not entitled to discovery of every mention of any
`EagleView competitor, or even itself. It is entitled to information relevant to the claims and
`defenses in this action.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 393 Filed 02/20/24 PageID.19023 Page 5 of 5
`
`Finally, Nearmap attempts to show relevance by asserting, incorrectly, that EagleView
`
`has alleged “competitive intelligence shared on Slack channels” is trade-secret information.18
`
`Nowhere does EagleView make such an allegation. Rather, the complaint only mentions Slack
`
`in the context previously mentioned. Namely, EagleView alleges Nearmap communicated
`
`EagleView’s purported trade secrets in Nearmap’s Slack channel.19 EagleView’s allegations do
`
`not “put at issue whether competitive intelligence gathered by companies constitutes a trade
`
`secret.”20 Rather, EagleView alleges, based on specific information, that Nearmap’s Slack
`
`channel contained information relevant to EagleView’s trade-secret claim. In sum, Nearmap has
`
`failed to show its requests, even if narrowed, seek relevant information.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Nearmap’s motion21 is denied because its requests for production are overly broad and
`
`seek irrelevant information.
`
`DATED this 20th day of February, 2024.
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`____________________________
`Daphne A. Oberg
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`18 (Id.)
`
`
`
`19 (Pls.’ First Am. Compl. ¶ 66, Doc. No. 276.)
`
`20 (Mot. 2, Doc. No. 373.)
`
`21 (Doc. No. 373.)
`
`
`
`5
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
