By Eric SchweibenzOn December 21, 2012, ALJ James E. Gildea issued Order No. 26 denying a motion by Complainant Pragmatus AV, LLC (“Pragmatus”) to enter a supplemental Protective Order to govern the discovery of nonparty Google Inc. (“Google”) in Certain Consumer Electronics, Including Mobile Phones and Tablets (Inv. No. 337-TA-839).
ALJ Gildea held that Pragmatus did not provide sufficient explanation or support to show how or why the protections already in place fail to provide adequate protection for Google. According to the Order, Google’s confidential business information and highly confidential source code is already protected by a Protective Order and an Addendum to the Protective Order. Further, ALJ Gildea held that Pragmatus’s request was considerably undermined by Google taking “no action on its own behalf to timely quash or limit the subpoena served on it or to seek some form of protective order itself.”
Accordingly, ALJ Gildea denied Pragmatus’s motion to enter a supplemental Protective Order to govern the discovery of nonparty Google Inc.