1. Monkey See Monkey Do LLC v. Peach, Inc.
Vs.

2. The Startup:
Founded by Cornelius Heston to market facial recognition software for unlocking smartphones.

3. The Engineer:
Cornelius hired Simon Zaius, Ph.D to develop the software.
Simon had a contractual obligation to assign rights to all IP he developed and maintain confidentiality.

4. Three years later . . .
Monkey See was marketing itself to all the major players in the smartphone market, including global giant Peach.

5. Peach was interested . . .
The talks between the two companies went further than any of Monkey See’s other negotiations.
In the end, Peach decided that it could do the development in-house.

6. Monkey See missed its big chance
Disgruntled, Simon left Monkey See…
. . . and was soon hired by Peach.

7. Peach got sued . . .
Monkey See sued both Peach and Simon for trade secret misappropriation.
He sought over $20 million in damages for unjust enrichment under both federal and state law.

8. The Lawsuit:
Monkey See alleged that Simon copied source code from his company computer to a flash drive during his employment.
Peach then used this trade secret information to obtain a patent and develop the Peach Z product.

9. Monkey See's Client Meeting
Cornelius Heston – Peter Mims
IT Director, Dweeba Jones – Priya Prasad
Attorney, George Grandscale – Ali Dhanani
Issues:
Imaging of Simon’s computer
All Versions of Source Code
Version 6 is the only version that has the Breakthrough Feature while Simon was employed by Monkey See.

10. Peach’s Client Meeting
Peach In-house Counsel 1, Kelly Eager – LaTasha Snipes
Peach’s In-house Counsel 2, Diamond Dye – Dhamineh Moraseli
Peach’s Outside Counsel, Wilma “Billy” Scairya – Paige Edwards
Issues:
Getting a Litigation Hold Out
Gathering Pricing Documents Worldwide
Producing all Versions of Peach’s Source Code

11. Discovery Hearing Monkey See Monkey Do’s Counsel – Peach’s Counsel –
Goliath Greybeard – Paul van Slyke
John Goodall – Kyle Friesen
vs.
Peach’s Counsel –
Henry Trotter James – Matthew Frontz
Princess Peach – Heather Khassian
Judge Peter C. Justice – Pete Chassman

12. Monkey's Motion to Compel – Source Code
Monkey See wants ALL versions of Peach’s facial recognition source code.
Will show when the special Breakthrough Feature Simon was working on was added to Peach’s code.
Irrelevant whether it was used in a finished product, it is still misappropriation of a trade secret.
Monkey See will agree to reasonable source code protections.

13. Monkey's Motion to Compel – Financial Documents
Monkey See wants pricing information for the Peach Z and their other smartphones worldwide.
This will allow Monkey See to see what value Peach has assigned to the facial recognition feature it stole from Monkey See.
Trade secret misappropriation is not territorially limited like patent infringement. If successful in its claim, Monkey See is entitled to damages for worldwide sales.

14. Monkey's Motion to Compel – Your Rulings?
Issue
Monkey’s Arguments
Peach’s Arguments
Source Code for All Versions
Relevant to copying allegations
Not too burdensome for giant Peach
Will agree to source code protections
Unreasonably broad
Source code inspections are burdensome, when done right
Worldwide Pricing Information on Other Models
Relevant to show value added by trade secrets
Trade secret claims permit global damages
Requested information will not reflect value of one small feature
Producing the information is too costly

15. Peach's Motion to Compel -- Forensics Assessment
Monkey's server logs that show Simon downloaded the entirety of version 6 of the code six weeks before he left the company
Not clear whether this was only to his computer or to a flash drive
No flash drive was turned in when Simon departed the company
Simon’s computer was re-purposed and given to another employee
Monkey had 20 personal computers in service at that time and can easily identify those computers.
Requested forensics is very narrowly tailored and will end once computer is identified and analyzed

16. Peach's Motion to Compel -- Technical Documents and Source Code
Monkey has argued that Simon added a facial recognition feature in version 6 of Monkey’s product that wasn’t present in earlier versions
Version 6 was the current version at Simon’s departure
Only discovery of all documents relating to development and testing of facial recognition features will confirm when the facial recognition features were added
Relevant because Monkey has argued this as a basis for alleging copying of version 6

17. Peach's Motion to Compel -- Technical Documents and Source Code
Rule 26 (b)(1) allows discovery that is:
relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case considering:
the importance of the issues at stake in the action
the amount in controversy
the parties’ relative access to relevant information
the parties’ resources
the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues
and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit

18. Peach's Motion to Compel – Your Rulings?
Issue
Peach’s Arguments
Monkey’s Arguments
Forensic Examination of Computers
Can definitively show whether Simon copied files to flash drive
Examination can be limited to reduce the burden
Not definitive because logs may have been overwritten
Extensive scope too burdensome for Monkey
Source Code for All Versions
Relevant to disprove Monkey’s allegations regarding development
Proportionate to the needs of the case under Rule 26
Only the allegedly copied Version 6 is relevant
Discovery is disproportionate because of limited relevance