EpicentRx, Inc. v. Carter

District Court, S.D. California·Decided September 30, 2020·No. 3:20-cv-01058·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EPICENTRX, INC., Case No.: 20cv1058-LAB-LL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 14 COREY A. CARTER, M.D., ORDER WITH MODIFICATIONS 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 46] 16

18 Currently before the Court is the Parties’ “Joint Motion for Entry of [Proposed] 19 Stipulated Protective Order.” ECF No. 46. The Parties represent they have agreed upon the 20 terms of a Protective Order (attached as Exhibit A to this Order) in all respects except for 21 one: whether the Protective Order should contain a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL– 22 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” designation that would preclude Defendant, Dr. Carter, 23 from directly reviewing certain materials with this designation. Id. at 5-6. For the reasons 24 set forth below, the Court: (1) GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for a provision allowing for 25 materials to be designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL–ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”; 26 and (2) GRANTS the Parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of a Stipulated Protective Order with 27 modifications. 28 1 RELEVANT BACKGROUND 2 The instant dispute arises over Section 7.3 of the Parties’ Stipulated Protective 3 Order, which permits the Parties to designate certain items as “HIGHLY 4 CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” Id. at 5. 5 Specifically, Section 7.3 states: 6 Disclosure of “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ 7 EYES ONLY” Information or Items. A higher level of 8 protection shall be provided for trade secrets and highly sensitive research, development or commercial documents, testimony, 9 information, or other materials designated “HIGHLY 10 CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” Unless otherwise ordered by the Court or permitted in writing by the 11 Designating Party, access to material designated “HIGHLY 12 CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” shall be restricted to the following individuals: 13 14 (a) Outside Counsel of Record for the Parties as well as employees of said Outside Counsel of Record to whom it is 15 reasonably necessary to disclose the information to assist such 16 attorneys in connection with the Action;

17 (b) Experts (as defined in this Order) used by Outside Counsel 18 of Record for the Parties (1) to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this Action; and (2) who have signed the 19 “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A); 20 (c) court reporters and their staff; 21 22 (d) the Court and its personnel;

23 (e) professional jury or trial consultants, and Professional 24 Vendors to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this Action and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and 25 Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A); 26 (f) authors and recipients of the Confidential Material; 27 28 1 (g) a fact deposition witness or a trial witness that meets the limitations of Section (f) above; any 30(b)(6) deposition witness 2 presented by the Designating Party; any trial witness, provided 3 that the Designated Material marked “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” has been or 4 will be offered into evidence, by stipulation of the Designating 5 Party or by ruling by the Court; attorneys for those witnesses; and if disclosure is reasonably necessary, provided: (1) the 6 deposing and/or examining party requests that the witness sign 7 the form attached as Exhibit A hereto; and (2) the witness will not be permitted to keep any confidential information unless they 8 sign the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” 9 (Exhibit A), unless otherwise agreed by the Designating Party or ordered by the court. Pages of transcribed deposition testimony 10 or exhibits to depositions that reveal Protected Material may be 11 separately bound by the court reporter and may not be disclosed to anyone except as permitted under this Stipulated Protective 12 Order; 13 (h) any mediator or settlement officer, and their supporting 14 personnel, mutually agreed upon by the parties engaged in 15 settlement discussions, subject to their agreement to maintain confidentiality to the same degree as required by this Protective 16 Order; and 17 (i) any other person with the prior written consent of the 18 Designating Party or by Order of this Court. 19 20 Ex. A at 9-10.1 21 Plaintiff argues a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 22 provision is appropriate in this case because there “may be disclosures and documents” 23 exchanged that “contain highly sensitive trade secrets and proprietary information” which 24 Plaintiff “contends [] would be inappropriate and prejudicial” for Plaintiff to disclose to 25

26 27 1 The Parties also dispute whether all other references to the “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” designation should be included. ECF 28 1 Defendant directly. ECF No. 46 at 5. Plaintiff further argues that the designation does not 2 prevent “counsel from rendering advice to their clients with respect to this litigation” and 3 that “protective orders in trade secrets cases commonly include” an AEO designation. Id. 4 Defendant argues that the inclusion of an AEO provision would be “prejudicial to 5 his ability to advise his attorneys, assist in this case, and make informed decision[s].” Id. 6 at 6. In addition, Defendant argues the provision is “illogical and highly prejudicial” as 7 Defendant would previously have had access to all confidential documents and information 8 in this case as the former CEO of EpicentRx, Inc. Id. 9 ANALYSIS 10 I. Inclusion of AEO Provision 11 Rule 26 authorizes the court, upon a showing of good cause, to issue a protective 12 order to “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue 13 burden or expense[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). 14 As the party seeking the “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES 15 ONLY” designation, Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing good cause for its inclusion. 16 Lindsey v. Elsevier Inc., No. 16-cv-00959-GPC-DHB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111786, at 17 *5 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2016) (citing Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 384 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 18 2004)). To establish good cause, Plaintiff must demonstrate that disclosure “will cause 19 specific prejudice or harm.” Id. In evaluating prejudice or harm in cases “[w]here trade 20 secrets or other confidential commercial information is involved, the court will balance the 21 risk of disclosure to competitors against the risk that a protective order will impair 22 prosecution or defense of the claims.” Lindsey, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111786, at *5-6 23 (quoting Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech Int’l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552, 555 (C.D. Cal. 2007)) 24 (citing Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1992)). 25 As an initial matter, the Court notes with disfavor that both of the Parties’ respective 26 briefs were unsupported by any factual evidence or legal authority. Nonetheless, Rule 26(c) 27 “confers broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate 28 and what degree of protection is required.” Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 1 36 (1984). 2 Here, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that this District’s Model Protective Order is an 3 appropriate starting point “setting forth presumptively reasonable conditions regarding the 4 treatment of highly confidential information.” See Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., No. 5 C 11-02709 EMC (LB), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23103, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2012).

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

EpicentRx, Inc. v. Carter, (S.D. Cal. 2020).

EpicentRx, Inc. v. Carter (EpicentRx, Inc. v. Carter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart
467 U.S. 20 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc.
384 F.3d 822 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)
Intel Corp. v. Via Technologies, Inc.
198 F.R.D. 525 (N.D. California, 2000)
Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech (SSPF) International, Inc.
242 F.R.D. 552 (C.D. California, 2007)
Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp.
960 F.2d 1465 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)