Beijing Meishe Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. TikTok Inc.
3:23-cv-06012
| N.D. Cal. | Jan 27, 2025Background
- Beijing Meishe Network Technology Co., Ltd. (Meishe) sued TikTok Inc. and others, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and copyright infringement related to its software code.
- Defendants moved to compel Meishe to produce decompiled object code and software application files, specifically related to certain versions of the Meishe app and Software Development Kit (SDK), after finding Meishe had not done so for all requested versions.
- The dispute focused on whether decompiled object code and compiled application files used by Meishe (and/or produced by the IDA Pro decompiler software) were within plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control for discovery.
- Meishe argued it had produced all it could, as it never generated files of decompiled object code with IDA Pro, and claimed contractual restrictions with Hex-Rays (maker of IDA Pro) prevented release of any database files.
- The Special Master reviewed submissions and heard arguments about the proportionality, relevance, and technical facts surrounding the decompilation process and the parties’ discovery conduct.
- An order was issued granting the motion to compel, instructing Meishe to produce all responsive materials in its control, including IDA Pro database records if accessible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance of decompiled/compiled code to claims/defenses | Not disputed | Highly relevant to misappropriation, damages, and statute of limitations | Defendants satisfied relevance requirement |
| Proportionality of discovery request | Not disputed | Scope is narrow, burden is low compared to importance of information | Defendants satisfied proportionality requirement |
| Existence/possibility of production of decompiled files | No decompiled files exist; all files already produced | IDA Pro database may contain responsive data under Meishe's control | Meishe must check and produce all responsive materials in its control |
| Contractual restriction under IDA Pro/Hex-Rays agreement | Contract bars production of database files | No evidence production would breach, only results from Meishe’s account | Not a valid basis to avoid discovery; protective order can address concerns |
| Fee shifting | (not applicable) | Plaintiff’s position unreasonable, request for fees | No fee shifting, arguments had substantial justification |
Key Cases Cited
- Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (describes burden on party seeking discovery to show relevance)
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978) (scope of discovery extends beyond pleadings)
- Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 2002) (broad discretion of district courts in determining relevancy for discovery)
- Security People, Inc. v. Medeco Security Locks, Inc., 59 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (trade secret claim accrual timing)
- Ashton-Tate Corp. v. Ross, 728 F. Supp. 597 (N.D. Cal. 1989), aff’d 916 F.2d 516 (9th Cir. 1990) (timing of accrual of trade secret claim)