BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Central Coast Agriculture Incorporated

Opinion

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

9 BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP, No. CV-19-05216-PHX-MTL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Central Coast Agriculture Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 The Court has considered the briefing on Plaintiff BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP’s 16 (“BBK”) Motion to Modify the Protective Order. (Doc. 566.) 17 Years ago, at the beginning of this case, the Court entered a Protective Order to 18 govern discovery shared between the parties. (Doc. 52.) Of concern to the parties and the 19 Court alike was the overlapping nature of the parties’ businesses and the risk of disclosing 20 proprietary financial information. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The Protective Order 21 thus contains a “Highly Confidential” attorneys’-eyes-only provision that excludes most 22 party representatives from viewing documents of proprietary value. 23 BBK now seeks to modify the Protective Order allowing its founder and owner 24 Joshua Kesselman to view a chart of Defendant Central Coast Agriculture Incorporated’s 25 (“CCA”) revenues over several years. CCA designated this material as Highly 26 Confidential, and it is subject to the heightened protection of the Protective Order. BBK 27 argues that the proposed modification facilitates Mr. Kesselman participating in the 28 upcoming mediation. CCA opposes the motion because divulging this proprietary 1 || information to Mr. Kesselman poses a business risk since BBK may expand its operations 2|| into the cannabis market, should cannabis become legal under federal law. CCA further □□ argues that BBK’s general counsel may review Highly Confidential material, and he will 4|| adequately advise his client at the mediation. 5 “[D]istrict courts have inherent authority to grant a motion to modify a protective || order where ‘good cause’ is shown. A party asserting good cause bears the burden to show || that specific prejudice or harm will result if the motion is not granted.” CBS Interactive, || Inc. v. Etilize, Inc., 257 F.R.D. 195, 201 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Phillips ex rel. Ests. of 9|| Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)) (citation modified). 10 The Court finds that BBK has not satisfied its burden. Of primary concern is the risk || of competitive injury to CCA if the revenue numbers are misused by Mr. Kesselman, other BBK personnel, or otherwise publicly disclosed. BBK’s argument that the information will 13 | be disclosed publicly at trial is of little concern for two reasons. First, the revenue numbers 14]| are relevant to an issue that will be tried to the Court, not a jury. Second, other provisions 15 || in the Protective Order as well as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure address the use of || highly confidential information at trial and offer procedural protections, e.g., filing under || seal. And, finally, BBK’s general counsel has access to these numbers and can advise Mr. 18 || Kesselman adequately during the mediation. 19 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Modify the Protective Order || (Doc. 566) is DENIED. 21 Dated this 5th day of August, 2025. 22 °° Wichal T. Hburde 24 Michael T. Liburdi 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28

_2-