A. Background

This case arises from the alleged misappropriation of Plaintiff's confidential and proprietary information by Defendants Briles Aerospace, Michael Briles (“Michael”), and Robert Briles (“Robert”). (Joint Stip. at 3). The asserted confidential and proprietary information at issue “relates to an aerospace fastener called the SLEEVbolt® or tapered sleeve bolt, which combines a tapered bolt made of titanium or nickel superalloy inside a stainless steel sleeve.” (Id.). Robert was the President of PB Fasteners before the assets of the company were sold in May 2011. (Id.). Shortly thereafter, Michael founded Briles Aerospace. (Id.).

Plaintiff alleges that beginning in 2015 or 2016, Defendants “launched a plot to develop a replica of the SLEEVbolt® by misappropriating Plaintiff's trade secret dimensions, formulae, and manufacturing processes—which are essential to the manufacture of the product—as well as other confidential business information.” (Joint Stip. at 3). Plaintiff asserts that “Michael Briles and Robert Briles provided such information to Briles Aerospace in breach of the confidentiality agreements that each made with Plaintiff before leaving the company.” (Id.). Shortly after first learning that Defendants had taken and used its confidential and proprietary information, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit, asserting claims for, inter alia, trade secret misappropriation. (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on December 17, 2018. (Dkt. No. 68). Nonexpert discovery closes on June 28, 2019. (Dkt. No. 118).

B. Motion to Compel

On March 15, 2019, Plaintiff propounded: (1) Second Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant Briles Aerospace; (2) First Request for Production and Inspection of Tangible Things to Defendant Briles Aerospace; (3) First Request to Permit Entry Onto Land to Defendant Briles Aerospace; and (4) First Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant Michael Briles. (Joint Stip., Exs. 1, 3, 5, 7). Defendants responded to each of these requests on April 15, 2019. (Id., Exs. 2, 4, 6, 8). The parties initially were in dispute as to 35 discovery requests. (Motion to Compel at 2). After the parties met and conferred on June 4, 2019, four categories of disputes remain. (Joint Statement at 1–2).[1]

C. Discussion

1. Documents Relating To Improper Acquisition, Disclosure, and Use of Plaintiff's Confidential Information (Request No. 12 to Briles Aerospace)

*2 Request No. 12 to Briles Aerospace seeks documents relating to Briles Aerospace's subcontracting of discrete manufacturing tasks for tapered sleeve bolts. (Joint Stip. at 9). Defendants contend that this request is overbroad. (Joint Statement at 9–10). Defendants note that they have multiple subcontractors that perform tasks related to tapered sleeve bolts, only some of which perform work related to the purported trade secrets at issue in this litigation. (Id.). Further, Defendants have agreed to produce, in response to Request No. 6 and the parties' agreed ESI search terms, documents related to the production or manufacture of tapered sleeve bolts. (Id.). After hearing argument from the parties, the Court agrees. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that documents exchanged with subcontractors unrelated to the trade secrets at issue are relevant to its claims and proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Briles Aerospace shall produce all documents exchanged with subcontractors during the period from January 1, 2016, to the present that relate to the alleged trade secrets at issue in this litigation.

Plaintiff's request to compel information responsive to Request No. 12 to Briles Aerospace is GRANTED IN PART.

2. Documents Relating To False Advertising (Request No. 33 to Briles Aerospace)

Request No. 33 seeks all communications between Briles Aerospace and any vendor related to its website. (Joint Stip. at 46). Plaintiff argues these communications are relevant to “Plaintiff's false advertising claims, including Briles Aerospace's direction of misleading statements on its website, the amount of money Briles Aerospace has invested to mislead the market on its website, the volume of web traffic that its misleading website has received among customers of aerospace fasteners, and thus the harm that Briles Aerospace's website has caused Plaintiff in the form of damaged market reputation or goodwill.” (Joint Statement at 5). Defendants contend that this request is not relevant to Plaintiff's false advertising claim. (Id. at 10). After hearing arguments from the parties, the Court agrees.

To prove a false advertising claim, a plaintiff must establish:

Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Quattrocchi, 673 F.3d 1105, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff has not demonstrated how documents exchanged between Briles Aerospace and its website vendors establish any of these elements. The information on Defendants' website speaks for itself. Indeed, only those statements actually “disseminated sufficiently to the relevant purchasing public” can form the basis of a false advertising claim. Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Sol., 513 F.3d 1038, 1054 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Further, to the extent that this request may capture some relevant information, it is vastly overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Yet, Plaintiff has repeatedly declined to narrow its request, including at the June 20 hearing.

Plaintiff's request to compel information responsive to Request No. 33 is DENIED.

3. Requests for Inspection (Request Nos. 4–8 to Briles Aerospace)

Requests for Inspection Nos. 4 to 8 seek the forensic inspection of certain electronic storage devices and accounts that have been used by Michael Briles for business purposes. (Joint Stip. at 56– 58). Defendants have agreed in principle to the inspection, but the parties are at an impasse regarding certain provisions in the proposed forensic inspection protocol. (Joint Statement at 10–15). Defendants also note that because their ESI production is largely complete, the inspection will require them to incur unnecessary costs to review the same ESI twice. (Id. at 11–12).

*3 After reviewing the parties' positions and hearing argument, the Court finds that the forensic inspection protocol shall include the following provisions:

Plaintiff's Requests for Inspection Nos. 4 to 8 are GRANTED IN PART.

4. Request To Permit Entry Onto Land

The Request To Permit Entry Onto Land seeks the opportunity to inspect the manufacturing processes in dispute at Briles Aerospace. (Joint Stip. at 68–69). Although Defendants contend that a facility inspection is unnecessary given the documents and information Defendants have agreed to produce, they have acquiesced to a facility inspection so long as the inspection follows a “tightly controlled protocol designed to avoid further disputes and minimize disruptions to business operations.” (Id. at 72).

*4 After reviewing the parties' positions and hearing argument, the Court finds that the facility inspection protocol shall include the following provisions:

Plaintiff's Request to Permit Entry Onto Land is GRANTED IN PART.

D. Conclusion

The Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART. Within 14 days of the date of this Order, or any later date as agreed to by the parties, Defendants shall (1) supplement their responses, (2) produce nonprivileged information responsive to Request No. 12, (3) permit inspection of Listed Electronic Storage Devices, and (4) permit entry onto their facility. Nevertheless, the parties are reminded that the nonexpert discovery cut-off is June 28, 2019, which “is not the date by which discovery requests must be served; it is the date by which all discovery ... is to be completed.” (Dkt. No. 118 at 3). If the parties are unable to complete their discovery by this deadline, they should seek an extension from the District Judge.

The parties may avail themselves of the Court's informal discovery dispute resolution process to resolve any remaining discovery issues. (See Judge Sagar's Procedures).

*5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Court appreciates the good faith efforts by the parties to significantly narrow their differences.

This Order is not intended to disturb any agreed-upon or noncontroversial provisions in the parties' forensic inspection protocol.

At the hearing, Plaintiff argued that it needs both a videographer and a photographer because still pictures cannot be extracted from video images. To the contrary, “[w]ith 4K video, thanks to the large amount of data captured with each frame, it's now possible to shoot video and extract usable files from single frames. 4K captures around 30 8MB images per second, and the resulting images are good enough to run in print magazines. That means that a photographer can take a 4K camera and shoot video, and then later select individual frames to deliver to a client.” <https://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/software-technique/pulling-stills-from-motion/>; (last visited June 21, 2019).

This Order is not intended to disturb any other agreed-upon or noncontroversial provisions in the parties' facility inspection protocol.