Armored Republic LLC v. Diamond Age Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedFebruary 2, 2021
Docket2:20-cv-01366
StatusUnknown

This text of Armored Republic LLC v. Diamond Age Corporation (Armored Republic LLC v. Diamond Age Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Armored Republic LLC v. Diamond Age Corporation, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Armored Republic LLC, No. CV-20-01366-PHX-DLR

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Diamond Age Corporation,

13 Defendant. 14 15 16 Before the Court are the parties’ cross motions for the entry of a protective order, 17 which are fully briefed. (Docs. 39, 40, 43, 44.) Armored Republic LLC’s (“Armored”) 18 motion is granted and Diamond Age Corporation’s (“Diamond”) motion is denied for the 19 reasons explained below.1 20 This case stems from the business relationship between Armored—an Arizona 21 company that manufactures and sells products such as ballistic and body armor—and 22 Diamond—a Delaware company that develops and manufactures certain ballistic 23 protection products. On September 10, 2019, the parties allegedly entered into a marketing 24 and distribution agreement (the “Agreement”), which provided that Armored would act as 25 the exclusive distributor—in most of the world—of certain products developed by 26 Diamond. (Doc. 11 at 2.) Following the breakdown of their business relationship,

27 1 Defendant’s request for oral argument is denied because the issues are adequately briefed and oral argument will not help the Court resolve the motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 78(b); LRCiv. 7.2(f); Lake at Las Vegas Investors Grp., Inc. v. Pac. Malibu Dev., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991). 1 Armored filed suit against Diamond in Maricopa County Superior Court on May 13, 2020. 2 (Doc. 1-1.) Diamond thereafter removed the action to this Court on July 10, 2020. (Doc. 3 1.) Armored’s operative complaint alleges wrongful termination of contract, breach of 4 contract, and breach of warranty claims. (Doc. 11.) It also seeks injunctive relief and a 5 declaratory judgment finding, inter alia, that the Agreement remains binding on Diamond, 6 that Diamond’s manufacturing costs are unreasonable, and that Armored is entitled to 7 assume control of product manufacturing with Diamond’s cooperation. (Id.) In its answer, 8 Diamond brings counterclaims for breach of contract, violation of the Lanham Act, 9 conversion, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, 10 and, in the alternative, seeks a declaratory judgment. (Doc. 18.) 11 On December 12, 2020, Diamond filed a motion for protective order.2 (Doc. 39.) 12 In its motion, Diamond requests a protective order that would wholly prevent Armored 13 from accessing responsive materials to eight of its requests for production,3 arguing that 14 the information sought is irrelevant. In the alternative, Diamond requests that—should the 15 Court conclude that the information Armored seeks is relevant—the Court fashion a 16 remedy allowing Armored to access the information “without [making Diamond] hand[] 17 over [its] trade secrets to a direct competitor.” (Id. at 3.) Specifically, Diamond proposes 18 that the Court direct Armored to re-submit its discovery requests, which Diamond will then 19 answer with responsive non-confidential information; and, should Armored find such 20 answers insufficiently responsive, it can seek in camera review of any withheld 21 information by the Court. (Id. at 16.) In its response, Armored argues that the requests for 22 production objected to by Diamond each seek information relevant to the lawsuit’s claims 23 and defenses and proffers a competing protective order that addresses both parties’ 24 confidentiality concerns while seeking to enable access to the materials necessary to

25 2 The procedural posture of Diamond’s motion is peculiar. Rather than waiting to defensively respond to any future motion to compel discovery filed by Armored, Diamond 26 has proactively filed a motion for protective order seeking relief from providing the responses that it has already refused to give. 27 3 In its motion, Diamond addresses why it seeks to avoid responding to request for production nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 14, and 15. However, Armored suggests that Diamond 28 has also refused to provide responses to five of its interrogatories and an additional nine requests for production. 1 prosecute and defend the litigation. (Doc. 40.) In its reply, Diamond does not address or 2 object to Armored’s proposed protective order and fails to provide suggested alterations or 3 argue how the parties’ interests could be better protected. Instead, it reiterates its prior 4 arguments, ignoring that Armored proposed an alternative solution. The Court will deny 5 Diamond’s motion and grant Armored’s motion. 6 First, the Court will not enter an order adopting either of Diamond’s discovery 7 proposals because the information sought by Armored is relevant. Particularly, Armored 8 has provided the Court with a chart that sets forth how each of its 17 discovery requests 9 are relevant to the lawsuit’s claims or defenses. (Doc. 40 at 19-22.) In its argument to the 10 contrary, Diamond contends the information sought is irrelevant because it concerns the 11 Agreement, which is unenforceable. (Doc. 43 at 16.) In the alternative, it argues that, even 12 if the Agreement is enforceable, the information sought by Armored is nevertheless 13 irrelevant if the Court adopts its own interpretation—disputed by Armored—of certain 14 provisions, such as the cost-plus provision, in the Agreement. But the motion before the 15 Court is not a motion for summary judgment. It would be inappropriate for the Court to 16 make findings regarding the Agreement and its provisions at this juncture. Perhaps 17 recognizing this fact in its reply, Diamond requests that, should it be persuaded to deny 18 Diamond’s motion, the Court stay discovery until it rules on Diamond’s not-yet-filed 19 motion for summary judgment. Diamond contends that, if it were to prevail on its 20 upcoming motion, the need for the release of confidential information will be obviated. 21 Diamond’s cursory and last-minute request for a stay under the circumstances is improper. 22 It has failed to file a motion to stay, cite the stay standard, or to even argue that the factors 23 supporting the issuance of a stay are met here. The Court will deny Diamond’s request for 24 a stay. 25 Second, the Court will grant Armored’s proposed protective order because it is 26 narrowly tailored to protect the parties’ confidential information,4 facilitates access to

27 4 Armored specifically notes that documents at issue contain the private information of its customers and “would provide [] competitors with insight into the methods and 28 processes by which [it] conducts its business and would reveal sensitive sales data.” (Doc. 40 at 11 (quoting DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., No. CV 12-8093-PCT- 1 materials relevant and necessary to prosecute and defend the case, and because the parties’ 2 interests in preserving their confidential information outweighs the public’s interest in 3 unfettered access to such information. In contrast, the remedy that Diamond seeks cannot 4 be justified by Diamond’s complaints that Armored, a direct competitor, might produce 5 competing products if given access to Diamond’s trade secrets. Rather, “orders forbidding 6 any disclosure of trade secrets or confidential commercial information are rare. More 7 commonly, the trial court will enter a protective order restricting disclosure to counsel.” 8 Fed. Open Mkt. Comm. of Fed. Res. Sys. v. Merrill, 443 U.S. 340, 363 n. 24 (1979). And, 9 even Diamond admits, “[n]ormally, in such situations, a proper remedy would be to have 10 Diamond[] submit its responses stamped ‘Confidential’ or ‘Attorneys’ Eyes Only and 11 prohibit the sharing of such by [Armored’s] counsel with [Armored] with a confidentiality 12 agreement.’” (Doc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Armored Republic LLC v. Diamond Age Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armored-republic-llc-v-diamond-age-corporation-azd-2021.