British Telecomms. PLC v. IAC/InterActiveCorp

British Telecomms. PLC v. IAC/InterActiveCorp

Opinion

 [*388]  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is The Parties' Joint Submission Regarding Proposed Protective Order. Dkt. No. 69. In the submission, the parties explain that they have been unable to reach agreement on all the terms of the proposed protective order in this case and that they require the Court's intervention to resolve the two remaining issues between them.

In the joint submission, the parties each made brief factual presentations and legal arguments with respect to the two issues. Following receipt of the submission, the Court conducted a telephonic conference [**2]  on March 6, 2019, and directed that plaintiff British Telecommunications PLC ("British  [*389]  Telecom") submit declarations addressing certain points raised during the conference. At the conclusion of the conference, both sides stated that they did not wish to offer additional evidence bearing on the protective order issues. Pursuant to the Court's direction, British Telecom submitted a declaration, to which it added further argument. See Dkt. No. 77. The defendants filed a response to that submission. Dkt. No. 79. Based on the parties' written presentations and the arguments made by the parties during the telephonic conference, the Court makes the following rulings on the two issues in dispute.

1. Access to Highly Confidential Information

a. Factual Background

The first issue that the parties presented in their joint submission was whether two in-house attorneys for British Telecom should be allowed access to the defendants' information designated as "highly confidential—outside attorneys' eyes only" (section 2.8 of the proposed protective order) and the defendants' information designated as "highly confidential—attorneys' eyes only—source code" (section 2.9 of the proposed protective order). In its supplemental [**3]  submission, British Telecom withdrew its request with respect to one of the two in-house attorneys and limited its request as to the remaining in-house attorney to the materials covered by section 2.8 of the proposed protective order.

British Telecom argues that its in-house attorney will be working on the litigation and needs to have access to the discovery information in the case in order to represent his client adequately. The defendants, on the other hand, argue that the in-house attorney is regularly engaged in patent enforcement on behalf of British Telecom and that his access to the defendants' highly confidential information could result in prejudice to the defendants in the event of any future patent disputes between the parties.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.