Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:2021cv00984 - Document 57 (W.D. Tex. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION ON DISPUTED PROTECTIVE ORDER re 40 Opposed MOTION for Entry of Disputed Protective Order. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (zv)

Download PDF
Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Apple Inc. Doc. 57 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Defendant. § § § § § § § § § § Case No. 6:21-CV-00984-ADA MEMORANDUM OPINION ON DISPUTED PROTECTIVE ORDER This opinion memorializes the Court’s decision on Jawbone Innovations, LLC’s (“Jawbone”) Opposed Motion for Entry of Disputed Protective Order. Dkt. No. 40. Apple Inc. (“Apple”) filed its Opposition, and Jawbone filed its Reply. Dkt. Nos. 49, 50. The Court instructed the parties to meet and confer to narrow their disputes after informing the parties of the Court’s preference for the language in its default protective order. The parties then submitted revised proposed protective orders to the Court for consideration. After careful consideration of the relevant facts, the parties’ briefs (Dkt. Nos. 40, 49, 50), and the parties’ revised proposals, the Court enters Jawbone’s revised proposed Protective Order to govern this case. The Court’s default protective order reflects carefully considered compromises between the need for efficient and workable discovery and the parties’ security concerns, and the default protective order effectively balances those concerns. To reduce the frequency of disputes over language in protective orders, the Court tracks its default protective order unless either party shows good cause for deviation. Here, Jawbone’s revised proposed protective order tracks the default protective order and 1 Dockets.Justia.com makes minor revisions to two paragraphs of the Court’s default protective order. Apple’s revised proposal, which is 30 pages, more than doubles the length of the default protective order, which is 13 pages. The Court finds that Jawbone’s revisions track the Court’s default protective order much more closely. Apple’s Opposition has not convinced the Court of a need to add an additional 17 pages of requirements. This is not a close call between two proposals that include only minor, competing revisions to the default protective order. Because Apple’s revised proposed protective order deviates so much from the Court’s default protective order, the Court has entered Jawbone’s revised proposed protective order in its entirety. Signed this 26th day of May, 2022. 2

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.