Arthur Rosengren v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation

District Court, C.D. California·Decided July 1, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-09064·Unknown

Opinion

Lance D. Wilson SBN 183852 lance.wilson@tuckerellis.com 201 Mission Street, Suite 2310 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: 415.617.2400 Facsimile: 415.617.2409 TUCKER ELLIS LLP Justin E. Garratt SBN 253520 justin.garratt@tuckerellis.com 515 South Flower Street Forty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223 Telephone: 213.430.3400 Facsimile: 213.430.3409 Attorneys for Defendant RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION f/k/a United Technologies Corporation (erroneously sued as “successor-in-interest to PRATT & WHITNEY ENGINE SERVICES, INC.”) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ARTHUR ROSENGREN, an individual, Case No.: 2:19-cv-09064-SVW-E Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL AND v. EXPORT-CONTROLLED CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION, et al., [Discovery Document: Referred to Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick] Defendants. Action Filed: October 3, 2019 Trial Date: November 3, 2020 This action may involve production of documents and discussion of trade secrets, research and development, and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure or any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. this matter have disclosure restrictions required by federal regulations of the United States, including, but not limited to, the U.S. Arms Export Control Act, as amended, 22. U.S.C. §§ 2751-2799, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”), as amended, 22 C.F.R. §§ 120-130, the Export Administration Act, as amended, 50 U.S.C. §§ 4611-4613, the Export Control Reform Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 4801-4826, and/or the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), as amended, 15 C.F.R. §§ 730, et seq. and any regulations and orders administered by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control Regulations (31 CFR Chapter V) (collectively “U.S. Export Control Laws”). Specifically, ITAR regulations control the export of defense-related articles and services on the United States Munitions List (“USML”). The Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs (“DDTC”) interprets and enforces ITAR, and its goal is to safeguard U.S. national security and further U.S. foreign policy objectives. ITAR regulations dictate that information and material pertaining to defense and military-related technologies (for items listed on the USML) may only be shared with U.S. Persons who have not been indicted or otherwise charged with violating the U.S. criminal statutes enumerated in 22 C.F.R. § 120.27 and whose names do not appear on relevant disbarment lists. Government contractors, such as Defendants in this case face heavy fines, criminal penalties, and loss of government contracts if they, intentionally or not, provide access to ITAR-protected defense articles, services or technical data to persons who are not eligible to receive such documents, materials, or information. Prior to disclosure, documents subject to U.S. Export Control Laws must be stamped to indicate that the materials are subject to export control laws. Any access to the documents must be restricted to ensure that export-controlled information, as defined by the above listed federal statutes and regulations, is not subject the producing party to fines and other potential penalties.1 This Court has authority to issue a protective order for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Given the national security interests and the potential for severe criminal and civil penalties, there is a clear showing of a particular and specific need for this protective order. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F. 2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975); see also 22 U.S.C.A. § 2778(h) (stating that “defense articles or defense services for purposes of this section shall not be subject to judicial review.”) In similar circumstances, courts have found good cause for protective orders in cases involving documents and information deemed confidential under U.S. Export Control Laws. See, e.g., Ross-Hime Designs, Inc. v. Unites States, 109 Fed. Cl. 725, 744- 46 (2013) (structure descriptions, drawings, and photographs requiring an export license pursuant to the Export Administration Regulations were within the scope of restricted information covered by a protective order); United States v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 461 F. Supp. 732 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) (protective order issued for defense exhibits, including applications and licenses deemed confidential pursuant to the Export Administration Act). These export control requirements make it imperative that documents produced in discovery are handled in such a way so that violation of the various controls on dissemination of the information are not violated. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, and to adequately restrict the disclosure of export-controlled 1 Export control laws provide for substantial penalties, both civil and criminal. Failure to comply with ITAR can result in civil fines as high as $500,000 per violation, while criminal penalties include fines of up to $1,000,000 and 20 years imprisonment per violation. See 22 C.F.R. 127.3, 22 U.S.C. § 2278(c), (e). Under EAR, maximum civil fines can reach $250,000 per violations. Criminal penalties can be as high as $1,000,000 and 20 years of imprisonment per violation. 50 U.S.C. § 2410, 50 U.S.C. § 1705. permitted reasonable and necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, and to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. Wherefore: 1. It is hereby ordered by the Court that the following shall apply to information, documents, testimony, excerpts from documents, and other materials produced in this action by the parties to this action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules of the Central District of California governing disclosure and discovery. 2. Information, testimony, documents and other materials may be designated (“Designated Material”) by any of the parties to this lawsuit, (“Designating Party(ies)”) in the manner permitted as set forth in this Protective Order (“this Order”). All such information, testimony, documents, excerpts from documents, and other materials will constitute Designated Material under this Order. The designations shall be (a) "CONFIDENTIAL" (“Confidential”); and/or, (b) "SENSITIVE—SUBJECT TO EXPORT CONTROL—U.S. Arms Export Act, International Traffic In Arms Regulations, Export Administration Act, U.S. Export Administration Regulations, Export Control Reform Act," ("Export-Controlled"). 3. Documents shall be designated by stamping or otherwise marking the documents with the words "CONFIDENTIAL," and/or "SENSITIVE—SUBJECT TO EXPORT CONTROL—U.S. Arms Export Act, International Traffic In Arms Regulations, Export Administration Act, U.S. Export Administration Regulations, Export Control Reform Act," thus clearl

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

Arthur Rosengren v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Arthur Rosengren v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation (Arthur Rosengren v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related