Masimo Corp. v. Mindray DS USA, Inc.
United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division
May 28, 2014, Decided; May 28, 2014, Filed
Case No.: SACV 12-02206-CJC(JPRx)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S APRIL 15, 2014 ORDER, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR REVIEW OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S APRIL 16, 2014 ORDER
Shenzhen Mindray asks the Court to review Magistrate Judge Rosenbluth's March 16 order denying its ex parte application for a partial stay of the magistrate's March 6 discovery order (Dkt. No. 119 ["March 6 Order"]), or in the alternative, for reconsideration of this Court's April 15 order denying Shenzhen Mindray's motion for review of the magistrate judge's March 6 order. Shenzhen Mindray's motion is DENIED.
On March 6, 2014, Judge Rosenbluth granted Masimo's motion to compel production of Shenzhen Mindray's source code, and ordered Shenzhen Mindray to comply with the order by April 14, 2014. (March 6 Order.) [*7] The order was issued after a lengthy hearing at which Judge Rosenbluth considered, as relevant here, both parties' arguments regarding Shenzhen Mindray's assertion that its source code is protected from disclosure under Chinese state secrecy law. (See Dkt. No. 122 ["March 6 Hearing Tr."] at 64:16-72:11.) Judge Rosenbluth rejected Shenzhen Mindray's claim, noting that it had not provided her anything beyond its own speculative arguments to substantiate the claim that disclosing the source code in discovery would violate Chinese law. (Id.) However, Judge Rosenbluth provided that if Shenzhen Mindray could return to her before April 14 with "something real from the Chinese government that says, . . . X, Y, and Z are state secrets," she would consider amending her order. (Id. at 70:12-71:3.)
Shenzhen Mindray moved this Court to review Judge Rosenbluth's March 6 Order. (Dkt. No. 125.) On April 10, 2014, Shenzhen Mindray submitted a supplemental reply to its motion, informing the Court that Shenzhen Food and Drug Agency ("SFDA") had issued an order that the source code constituted "state secrets covered by" four Chinese laws. (Dkt. No. 145.) Then, on April 11, 2014, Shenzhen Mindray submitted [*8] an ex parte application to Judge Rosenbluth to inform her of the SFDA order and seek a stay of the production deadline imposed by her March 6 Order. (Dkt. No. 148.)
Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195028 *
MASIMO CORPORATION, Plaintiff, vs. MINDRAY DS USA, INC., ET AL., Defendants.
Prior History: Masimo Corp. v. Shenzhen Mindray Bio-Med. Elecs. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197208 (C.D. Cal., Apr. 16, 2014)
source code, state secrets, disclosure, parte, clearly erroneous, discovery, contrary to law, confidential, secrecy