Arthur Rosengren v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 1, 2020
Docket2:19-cv-09064
StatusUnknown

This text of Arthur Rosengren v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation (Arthur Rosengren v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

Opinion

Lance D. Wilson SBN 183852 2 lance.wilson@tuckerellis.com 201 Mission Street, Suite 2310 3 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: 415.617.2400 4 Facsimile: 415.617.2409 5 TUCKER ELLIS LLP 6 Justin E. Garratt SBN 253520 justin.garratt@tuckerellis.com 7 515 South Flower Street Forty-Second Floor 8 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223 Telephone: 213.430.3400 9 Facsimile: 213.430.3409 10 Attorneys for Defendant RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION 11 f/k/a United Technologies Corporation (erroneously sued as “successor-in-interest to PRATT & WHITNEY ENGINE 12 SERVICES, INC.”) 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 ARTHUR ROSENGREN, an individual, Case No.: 2:19-cv-09064-SVW-E 16 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER 17 REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL AND v. EXPORT-CONTROLLED 18 MATERIALS CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION, et 19 al., [Discovery Document: Referred to Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick] 20 Defendants. Action Filed: October 3, 2019 21 Trial Date: November 3, 2020 22 23 24 25 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 26 This action may involve production of documents and discussion of trade secrets, 27 research and development, and/or proprietary information for which special protection 28 from public disclosure or any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. 2 this matter have disclosure restrictions required by federal regulations of the United 3 States, including, but not limited to, the U.S. Arms Export Control Act, as amended, 22. 4 U.S.C. §§ 2751-2799, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”), as 5 amended, 22 C.F.R. §§ 120-130, the Export Administration Act, as amended, 50 U.S.C. 6 §§ 4611-4613, the Export Control Reform Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 4801-4826, and/or the U.S. 7 Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), as amended, 15 C.F.R. §§ 730, et seq. and 8 any regulations and orders administered by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign 9 Assets Control Regulations (31 CFR Chapter V) (collectively “U.S. Export Control 10 Laws”). 11 Specifically, ITAR regulations control the export of defense-related articles and 12 services on the United States Munitions List (“USML”). The Deputy Assistant Secretary 13 of State for Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs (“DDTC”) 14 interprets and enforces ITAR, and its goal is to safeguard U.S. national security and 15 further U.S. foreign policy objectives. ITAR regulations dictate that information and 16 material pertaining to defense and military-related technologies (for items listed on the 17 USML) may only be shared with U.S. Persons who have not been indicted or otherwise 18 charged with violating the U.S. criminal statutes enumerated in 22 C.F.R. § 120.27 and 19 whose names do not appear on relevant disbarment lists. Government contractors, such 20 as Defendants in this case face heavy fines, criminal penalties, and loss of government 21 contracts if they, intentionally or not, provide access to ITAR-protected defense articles, 22 services or technical data to persons who are not eligible to receive such documents, 23 materials, or information. Prior to disclosure, documents subject to U.S. Export Control 24 Laws must be stamped to indicate that the materials are subject to export control laws. 25 Any access to the documents must be restricted to ensure that export-controlled 26 information, as defined by the above listed federal statutes and regulations, is not 27 28 2 subject the producing party to fines and other potential penalties.1 3 This Court has authority to issue a protective order for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 26(c)(1). Given the national security interests and the potential for severe criminal and 5 civil penalties, there is a clear showing of a particular and specific need for this protective 6 order. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F. 2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975); see also 22 7 U.S.C.A. § 2778(h) (stating that “defense articles or defense services for purposes of this 8 section shall not be subject to judicial review.”) 9 In similar circumstances, courts have found good cause for protective orders in 10 cases involving documents and information deemed confidential under U.S. Export 11 Control Laws. See, e.g., Ross-Hime Designs, Inc. v. Unites States, 109 Fed. Cl. 725, 744- 12 46 (2013) (structure descriptions, drawings, and photographs requiring an export license 13 pursuant to the Export Administration Regulations were within the scope of restricted 14 information covered by a protective order); United States v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 461 15 F. Supp. 732 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) (protective order issued for defense exhibits, including 16 applications and licenses deemed confidential pursuant to the Export Administration 17 Act). 18 These export control requirements make it imperative that documents produced in 19 discovery are handled in such a way so that violation of the various controls on 20 dissemination of the information are not violated. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 21 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 22 discovery materials, and to adequately restrict the disclosure of export-controlled 23 24 1 Export control laws provide for substantial penalties, both civil and criminal. Failure to 25 comply with ITAR can result in civil fines as high as $500,000 per violation, while 26 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 27 fines can reach $250,000 per violations. Criminal penalties can be as high as $1,000,000 28 and 20 years of imprisonment per violation. 50 U.S.C. § 2410, 50 U.S.C. § 1705. 2 permitted reasonable and necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the 3 conduct of trial, and to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 4 justified in this matter. 5 Wherefore: 6 1. It is hereby ordered by the Court that the following shall apply to 7 information, documents, testimony, excerpts from documents, and other materials 8 produced in this action by the parties to this action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil 9 Procedure and the Local Civil Rules of the Central District of California governing 10 disclosure and discovery. 11 2. Information, testimony, documents and other materials may be designated 12 (“Designated Material”) by any of the parties to this lawsuit, (“Designating Party(ies)”) 13 in the manner permitted as set forth in this Protective Order (“this Order”). All such 14 information, testimony, documents, excerpts from documents, and other materials will 15 constitute Designated Material under this Order. The designations shall be (a) 16 "CONFIDENTIAL" (“Confidential”); and/or, (b) "SENSITIVE—SUBJECT TO 17 EXPORT CONTROL—U.S. Arms Export Act, International Traffic In Arms 18 Regulations, Export Administration Act, U.S. Export Administration Regulations, Export 19 Control Reform Act," ("Export-Controlled"). 20 3.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Arthur Rosengren v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-rosengren-v-curtiss-wright-corporation-cacd-2020.