In the latest case against Microsoft, a United States Magistrate Judge signed the parties' First Amended Stipulated Protective Order obviously written for concealment. The case is Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Microsoft Corp., NO. 8:18-CV-02053-AG (JDEx), 2019 WL 451345 (C.D. Cal. February 5, 2019).
In this stipulated amended protective order, the parties stipulated and the Magistrate Judge agreed that:
Discovery in this action is likely to involve confidential, proprietary, or private information requiring special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than this litigation. Thus, the Court enters this Protective Order. This Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery, and the protection it gives from public disclosure and use extends only to the specific material entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles.
Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Microsoft Corp., NO. 8:18-CV-02053-AG (JDEx), 2019 WL 451345, at *1 (C.D. Cal. February 5, 2019) (emphasis added).
Never before has "from use for any purpose other than this litigation" been an accepted reason for a protective order. It simply has never appeared among the list of "the applicable legal principles." Until now.
Now, in this Microsoft case, it has. By stipulation. And by the official order of a magistrate judge. Whether this will actually stand as precedent or not, by the clear terms of this stipulated order, nobody outside of this Microsoft case can ever so much as see this stuff:
A receiving party may use designated material only for this litigation.
Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Microsoft Corp., NO. 8:18-CV-02053-AG (JDEx), 2019 WL 451345, ¶ 4.1, at p. *2 (C.D. Cal. February 5, 2019). The public cannot see it. Other lawyers and other parties and in fact anyone outside of this Microsoft litigation cannot see it.
All because of a new legal invention crafted by the stipulation in Microsoft's latest case, and signed by a magistrate judge into law: because "private information" is likely to be discovered and so must be protected "from use for any purpose other than this litigation." (Emphasis added.)
Baseless in law, perhaps, but as written that seems pretty absolute. It was intended to be. Do you think differently?
There may be other features of this stipulated order worth seeing the light of day, and if so, I will try to point them out in future articles.
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.
Comments