NDCA allows discovery of settlement agreement


Magistrate Judge Grewal of the Northern District of California, in Good Tech. Corp. v. AirWatch, LLC, Case No. 5-12-cv-05827 (Sept. 25, 2014), issued an order denying a motion for protective order. There is not document associated with the entry, just a text only entry from the court, which is quoted in full: --more-->

ORDER DENYING 115 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER entered by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal. The court has considered the parties' arguments in their respective briefs and at the hearing held earlier today. After the hearing the court further considered the particular case cited by counsel at the end of the hearing: Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Roche Diagnostics Corp., Case No. 05-3117, 2007 WL 4166030 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2007). On balance, the court is persuaded that neither a protective order nor an in camera review of the settlement agreement at issue is warranted. Whether the agreement is ultimately material to the question of the hypothetical license here remains to be seen. But the prejudice to MobileIron from access to the agreement by Good's outside counsel is clearly outweighed by Good's need to evaluate the agreement under Georgia-Pacific Factor 2 and ResQNet. The motion is DENIED. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 09/25/2014)