CustomPlay LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 9:2017cv80884 - Document 125 (S.D. Fla. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 116 Plaintiff's Expedited Motionto Modify the Prosecution Bar Provision of the Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge William Matthewman on 5/21/2019. See attached document for full details. (kza)

Download PDF

CustomPlay LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. Doc. 125 UN ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SO U THERN DISTRICT OF FLOR ID A CivilN o.l7-cv-8o884-M arra/M atthew m an CU STOM PLAY ,LLC, Plaintiff, FILED BY D.C. A M A ZON .CO M ,m C ., MAt 2 l2219 D efendant. ANGELA E.NOBLE CLERK U S DIST.CT. s.o.oF/tk.-.w.RB. O RD ER G R AN TING IN PA R T A N D DEN Y IN G IN PA RT PLA IN TIFF'S EX PEDITED M O TIO N TO M O D IFY T H E PR O SECU TIO N BAR PR O VISIO N O F TH E PROTECTIVE O RDER IDE 1161 THIS CAUSE is before the Coul't upon Plaintiff, Customplay, LLC'S (dtplaintiff') Expedited M otionto M odifytheProsecution BarProvision ofthe Protective Order(tdMotion'') gDE 1161.Thismatterwasreferred to theundersigned by United StatesDistrictJudgeKenneth A.Marra.SeeDE 31.Defendant,Amazon.com,Inc.(tsDefendanf),hasfiled aresponseto the motion (DES 118,1221along with a Declaration ofTheodore J.Angelis (DES 119,1231,and Plaintiffhasfiled a reply gDE 1241.The Courthasexpedited brieting on thisM otion and has determ ined thatno hearing isnecessary.Thism atteris now ripe forreview . 1. PR O TEC TIV E O R D ER A T ISSU E The pending M otion deals w ith Plaintiff's request to m odify the provisions of a tûprosecution BarProvision''ofaProtectiveOrderenteredby theCourtuponthejointmotionof the parties. Specifically, on M ay 25, 2018, the parties filed a Stipulated Protective O rder Govem ingDissemination ofConfidentiallnformation ('TrotectiveOrder'')gDE 581.TheCourt Dockets.Justia.com entered the Protective Orderon the same date.(DE 591.Paragraph 7 ofthe Protective Order statesthe follow ing: Absent w ritten consent from the Producing Party, any Counsel who receives access to CSHIG H LY CON FIDEN TIA L- A TTORNEY S' EY ES ON LY'' or ISH IGH LY CON FID EN TIA L- SOU RCE CO DE''inform ation thatis technicalin nature shallnot supervise,assist,substantively advise,or otherw ise substantively counselin the drafting or am ending ofpatentclaim s of any patent application in the field ofvideo alm otation before any foreign ordomestic agency fora period ending two years after the finalresolution of this litigation.This provision does notprohibit a Party's Counsel from participating in reexam ination proceedings, Post-G rant Review proceeding, Inter Partes Review proceeding, or Covered Business M ethod Review proceeding involving any of the Party's patents, provided,howeverthatsuch Counsel(who had access to the Party'stechnical Protected M aterial designated as ICH IG HLY CON FIDEN TIA L- A TTORN EY S' EYES ONLY''or 'CHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL- SOURCE CODE'') do not participate in the drafting or am ending of any patent claim s in the field of video annotation.The duration ofthissection m ay be term inated earlierby agreem entof theparties(c.g.,inthecaseofsettlement). (DE 59,pp.10-111. lI. PLAIN TIFF'S M O T IO N On M ay 13,2019,Plaintifftiled itsexpedited M otion (DE 116Jseeking modification of the above provision ofthe Protective O rder.Plaintiff argues thatthe i'restrictive language of the Prosecution Bar Provision''precludes every attorney in Plaintiff's counsel's office from assisting Plaintiffin am ending its patentclaim s.1d.atp.2.Plaintiff further asserts that only one attonzey in Plaintiff's counsel's office,K yle Cetm inck,Esq., has actually review ed the docum ents that D efendant designated Ctconfidential- A ttorneys' Eyes Only.''1d. A ccording to Plaintiff, M r. Ceuninck w illnot be involved in am ending any of the claim s of Plaintiff's patents before the PatentTrialand AppealBoard.ld Plaintiffcontendsthatl'gelxcluding Customplay'scounsel from representing itwith respectto claim amendmentwould unduly prejudice Customplay'' because iigslince Customplay's inception, Counsel has been Customplay's sole intellectual property counsel.''1d. at p. 3. Plaintiff requests that the Court m odify the Prosecution B ar Provision to change the language from lûany counselw ho receives access to''and Sicounselw ho had access to''the term s ûiany counselwho view s''and Cccounselw ho had view ed.''ld Plaintiffarguesthat,when itagreed to the Protective Order,D efendanthad notstated any intenttofileapetitionforfnferpartesreview withthePatentTrialand AppealBoard.gDE 116, p.41.Plaintiffmaintainsthatûûgood cause supportsthe minormoditicationsthatCustomplay SCCkS.However,without such modification,Customplay argues tflat it will suffer prejudice which would outweigh any such prejudice to Amazon that could possibly result from the requested m odification.''1d.atp.5.A ccording to Plaintiff,counsel's representation of Plaintiff during the interpartes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board does not createariskofinadvertentuseofDefendant'scontidentialinfonnation,and thepotentialinjury to Plaintiff if the Court does not m odify the Protective O rder would outw eigh any potential injurytoDefendant.1d.atpp.5-7. Attached to theM otion istheDeclaration ofPlaintiff'scounsel,Kyle A.Ceuninck (DE 116-41.Mr.Ceuninck atteststhathe isthe only person athis1aw tirm to have viewed any of Defendant's docum ents,w hich are m aintained on a passw ord-protected docum ent database.Id. at!7. 111. D EFEN DA N T'S R ESPO N SE D efendantargues thatithasprovided Plaintiffw ith tdthe source code,and countless trade secrets,thatpowertheAmazon technology atissue.''(DE 118,p.11.Defendantbelievesthat other attorneys at the law firm representing Plaintiff have accessed, or at least received, the highly confidentialinform ation.Id.According to Defendant,atthe tim e thatthe parties agreed on the language in the Protective O rder,Plaintiff knew thatinterpartes review w as foreseeable. 1d.atp.5.M oreover,the Patent Trialand A ppealBoard instituted interpartes review in M arch 20l9, but Plaintiff w aited until A pril 9, 2019, to contact Defendant about m odifying the Protective Order. 1d. D efendant quickly responded, and Plaintiff w aited a m onth to tile its M otion.1d.atp.6. D efendant contends thatprosecution bar provisions are com m onplace because it is very difticult for ûûtrial counsel having confidential teclm ical inform ation about an adversary not to rely on thatinform ation,even ifonly indirectly and inadvertently,w hen advocating zealously for her client's own interests.''(DE 118,pp.6-81.Defendant further contends thatcourts have rejected Plaintiffs proposed language for the modification of the Protective Order as Cdnecessarily inadequate.''1d.atp.9.Thisisbecause applying the prosecution baronly to law yers w ho have actually view ed the confidential infonnation would allow lawyers to learn the inform ation through conversationsorw ritten sum m aries.1d. D efendantnextargues thatPlaintiffhas notsatisfied its burden in seeking to m odify the Protective Order because a11 four relevant factors the nature of the protective order; the foreseeability,atthe tim e ofthe issuance ofthe order,ofthe m odification requested' ,the parties' reliance on the order;and whether good cause exists for the m oditication al1 weigh against modification.gDE 118,pp.10-151.DefendantpointsoutthatPlaintiffhasnotfonually statedin its M otion or the attached D eclaration that other law yers at the law firm lack know ledge of D efendant's highly confidential infonnation; Plaintiff states that only one attorney physically reviewed the infonnation.1d.atp.l2.Finally,D efendant asserts thatPlaintiffhas not show n the required tûsevere prejudice'' and that the Protective Order already contains a reasonable, com prom ised prosecution barprovision.1d.atpp.13-15. Attached to the Response is the Declaration ofD efendant's counsel,Theodore J.Angelis (DES119,1231. IV. PLA IN TIFF'S R EPLY ln its reply,Plaintiff argues thatthe nature of the Protective Order favors m odification becauseitexpressly allowsformoditication.(DE 124,p.51.Plaintiffnextarguesthatitdidnot foresee the need to am end its claim s in the interpartes review untilM arch 2019 and thatitacted prom ptly to w ork outthe issue w ith D efendant.1d.atpp.3-6.Plaintiffasserts thatreliance on the Protective Orderdoesnotweigh in favorofthe m odification because the docum entsproduced by D efendant w ere not truly highly confidential and because the senior atlorneys at Plaintiff s counsel's 1aw firm have not view ed any protected m aterials. 1d. at p. 6. Finally, Plaintiff m aintains that good cause exists forthe m odification.1d.atp.7.Plaintiffexplains thatonly one attorney has accessed the confidential docum ents produced by Defendant, that D efendant is sim ply speculating that other attorneys have knowledge of the contidential infonnation,thatan ethicalw allbetw een attorneys would be sufticient,and that Plaintiff being required to retain a new law 517, 1, 1wouldbegreatlyprejudicial.1d.atpp.7-10. Attached to the reply is another Declaration of Plaintiff's attorney, Kyle A . Ceuninck (DE 124-11.Mr.Ceuninck aversthatthedocumentsproduced by Defendantonly contain short snippetsof incompletesource code.1d.atT 5.M r.Ceuninch also statesthathe isthe only attorney in the law firm who içhas actually review ed,accessed,orhas know ledge ofthe contents ofAmazon'sdocuments.''1d.at! 6.Finally,he explainsthathe hasnotcommunicated with other attorneys atthe firm aboutthe contentofthe docum ents,and thathe w illnotdo so tm tilthe interpartesreview proceedingsarecompleted.1d.at!!7-8. V. A NA LY SIS The Courthas carefully review ed the M otion,response,reply,and the entire docket in this case.First,the Courtfinds thatthe express language of the Protective Order entered by the Courton M ay 25,2018,does allow forits modification.gDE 59,p.18,! 13.11.Thatis,the nature of the Protective O rder contem plates that a m oditication m ay be necessary and m ay be sought by any person. Plaintiff is, therefore, certainly pelnnitted to seek m odification of the Protective Order. Second,theCourtfindsthattheinterpartesreview (1CIPR'')institutedinmid-M arch 2019 provides a sound basis for Plaintiff to m ove to m odify the Protective Order.Plaintiff did not foresee this occurrence at the tim e the Protective Order w as entered on M ay 25,2018.This constitutesa substantialchange in circum stances. Third,the Courttindsgood cause does existforthe Courtto grantsom e reliefto Plaintiff, although notthe fullreliefsoughtby Plaintiff.Thatis,the Courtfindsgood cause to m odify and clarify the Protective O rderas specifically delineated below . Fourth, in balancing all the relevant factors, the Court finds that Plaintiff w ould be unfairlyand severely prejudicediftheCourtdidnotgrantamodification andclarificationofthe Prosecution BarProvision. Fifth,although the parties have relied upon the Protective Order,D efendantw illsufferno prejudicedueto the Court'sclarification andmoditication ofthe Protective Orderasdiscussed below.lmportantly,in itsresponsetotheMotion,Defendantexplicitly states,idlblutitisunclear w hether both of the lawyers who are Custom play's counsel in the inter partes review - A dam 6 U nderw ood and Bryan W ilson- have accessed A m azon's confidential inform ation. lf not, Custom play's m otion is baseless' ,M r.Carey's firm need do nothing m ore than create an ethical wallbetween itslawyers.''(DE 118,p.131.lnitsreply,Plaintiffarguesthatonly Mr.Ceuninck hasaccessed Defendant'scontidentialinformation.(DE 124,p.81.TheDeclaration ofKyleA. Ceuninckattachedtothereply gDE 124-11furtherclarifiesthatM r.Ceuninck istheonlyattorney in the 1aw 514, 1 4 w ho Sshas actually review ed, accessed, or has know ledge of the contents of Amazon'sdocuments.''1d.at!6. In lightof the foregoing,the Courthereby clarifies and m odifies the Protective O rder as follow s. The Court w ill perm it only tw o specific attorneys from Plaintiff's 1aw finn, Carey Rodriguez M ilian Gonya,LLC (slcarey Firm''l--Adam Underwood,Esq.,and Bryan W ilson, Esq.--to w ork on the 1PR proceedings before the PatentTrialand AppealB oard.M r.U nderw ood and M r.W ilson can only w ork on the 1PR proceedings so long as the ethical w all,w hich has already been form ed according to Plaintiff s representations and the requirem ents for which the Court discusses below , rem ains intact betw een M r. Underw ood and M r. W ilson and any attorneys from the Carey Firm who have accessed, review ed, or com m unicated about D efendant'sconfidentialinform ation.See Voice D om ain Techs.,LLC v.Apple,lnc.,N o.CIV .A . l3-40138-TSH,2014 W' L 5106413,at*9 (D.M ass.Oct.8,2014)(permitting such an ethical w allas a solution to avoid contidentialinfonnation from litigation to be used in reexam ination proceedingsl;seealso Valencell,Inc.v.Apple,lnc.,No.5:l6-CV-I-D,2016W L 7217635,at*9 (E.D.N.C.Dec.12,2016)(dtNonetheless,the courtsharestheperspectivereflected in theTexas m odelprotective orderthatan ethicalw allisa reasonable m eansofhelping to ensure com pliance with the purpose behind the prosecution bar.'').The ethicalwallrequired by the Courtin the instantcase w illsafeguard Defendant'shighly confidentialinform ation. The Courthereby requires,as partofthe required ethical wall,thatM r.U nderw ood and M r.W ilson cannot directly or indirectly access or review the confidentialinform ation produced by Defendantwhich Defendant has designated,orshalldesignate in the future,as (tHIGHLY CON FIDEN TIAL- ATTO RN EY S'EY ES ON LY ''orCtH IG HLY CON FID EN TIAL- SOUR CE CODE'' pursuant the Protective O rder. M oreover, M r. Underw ood and M r. W ilson cannot communicate(orallyorin writing ()ran any otherfashion)with any attorneysintheCareyFirm aboutthis highly confidentialinform ation previously produced by Defendant or produced in the future.Finally,M r.U nderwood and M r.W ilson cannot be in an area of the law t11111 w here the contidential inform ation is being verbally discussed and cannot be party to any telephone communication,email,text,memorandum,written summaries,orotherdoctzmentts)wherethe contidential inform ation is being discussed.M oreover,M r.U nderwood and M r. W ilson shall ensure thatthey are the only tw o attorneys from the Carey Firm w ho directly or indirectly w ork on the 1RP proceedings.The Courtw illrequire M r.U nderw ood and M r.W ilson to tile aftidavits stating,underoath,thatthey agree to the term s as setforth above and shallscnzpulously adhere to these tenns. The Courthas clarified and m odified the Protective O rder by carving outan exception in the Prosecution Bar Provision to perm it M r. Underw ood and M r. W ilson w ork on the 1PR proceedings before the PatentTrial and A ppealBoard.These are the only tw o attonw ys at the Carey Firm who m ay w ork,indirectly or directly,on the 11* proceedings.ln lightof the m uch ado and objectionlDefendanthasmadeaboutJohn Carey,Esq.'sinvolvementin thislitigation, 1 SeeDE 118, pp.4-5,l2. 8 and in lightofthe factthatDefendanthas provided factualallegations which arguably supportits contention thatM r.C arey has som e know ledge ofthe highly confidentialinform ation,the Court w illnot allow M r.Carey to w ork on the 1PR proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal .' %. Board,either directly or indirectly.This should help to alleviate D efendant's concern aboutany potentialviolation ofthe Protective O rder and any use ofthe highly confidentialinform ation in the 1PR proceedings. TheCourtisaware ofthe extensivecase 1aw cited by Defendantin itsresponseregarding modification ofaprotectiveorder.ln enteringthisOrder,theCourthasconsidered and attempted to adhere to a1lrelevantcase law .The Courthas carefully review ed,for exam ple,Judge Bryson's excellent opinion in British Telecomm unications PLC v. lA c/lnterA ctivecorp, N o. CV 18-366-W CB,2019 W L 1244075 (D.Del.M ar. l8,2019),as wellas the four-factor test discussed in Chicago M ercantile Exch.,lnc.v.Tech.Research G rp., LLC,276F.R.D.237(N. D. 111.2011),acaseuponwhichbothsidesrelyheavily. In the instant Order,how ever,the Courtis only slightly m odifying and clarifying the Protective Order by m andating the institution of an ethical w allw hich w ill allow tw o specitk attom eys to participate in the IRP proceedings so long as they are ethically walled offfrom the highly contidential inform ation produced by D efendant in this litigation. ln other words, Plaintiff's M otion is granted to the extentthatthe Courthas clarified and m odified the Protective Order to carve out an exception for tw o attorneys, and tw o attorneys only,but the M otion is denied to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to furtherm odify the actual language of the Protective Order.2 The Courtis concerned thata w holesale m oditication ofthe Protective O rderto change 2Defendantarguesin itsresponsethatttcustomplayhastheburdenofshow ing, on alawyer-by-lawyerbasis,thatis 9 the language ofthe Prosecution BarProvision asrequested by Plaintiffm ay unnecessarily lead to furtherdisputesbetw een the parties.The ethicalw allprovision im posed by the Court,along w ith other conditions im posed,provides clality and specificity so as to avoid further litigation over this issue. Finally,the Courtnotes its disappointm entw ith Plaintiff and its counselin thatPlaintiff adm ittedly knew aboutthe instantdispute in M arch 2019 and w aited untilM ay to file itsM otion on an expedited basis.The Courthas had to set aside other m atters and dedicate its resourcesto thismatterin orderto resolvePlaintiffsM otion on an expedited basis.The Courtdoesnotwant toseethisunnecessarywasteofjudicialresourcesoccuragain. Based on the foregoing,itishereby O R DER ED as follow s: 1. Plaintiff's Expedited M otion to M odify the Prosecution Bar Provision of the ProtectiveOrder(DE 1161isGRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as specified above. 2. M r.U nderw ood and M r.W ilson are the only attorneysatthe C arey Firm who shallbe perm itted to w ork on the inter partes review proceedings so long as the ethicalw all described above rem ains intact. They shall com ply with a1l conditions previously stated in this Order,as willPlaintiff and allthe attorneys atthe Carey Finu.N o other attorney in the Carey Firm shall be perm itted to directly or indirectly work on the interpartes review .M r.Underwood and M r.W ilson shallfile affidavits on orbefore M ay 25,2019,stating that they will follow the Court's directives and fully com ply w ith the Court's Order and directives. proposedmodificationtotheAgreedProtectiveOrderisnecessarytoavoidaclearandseriousinjury.''(DE 118,p. 121.TheCourthasengagedinalawyer-by-lawyeranalysisincomingto itsdecision. 10 D O N E and O RD ER ED in Cham bers atW estPalm Beach,Palm Beach County,Florida, this 4 1jr day ot-M ay,2019. W ILLIA M M TTH EW M AN U nited States agistrate Judge 11

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.