Grant Cochran v. Air and Liquid Systems Corporation

District Court, C.D. California·Decided March 30, 2023·No. 2:21-cv-09612·Unknown

Opinion

Viiu Spangler Khare (SBN 190429) 2 vspanglerkhare@bcsslaw.com K. Lynn Finateri Silbiger (SBN 196488) 3 lsilbiger@bcsslaw.com 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1500 4 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 955-1150 5 Facsimile: (213) 955-1155

6 Attorneys for Defendant RAYTHEON COMPANY 7

12 GRANT COCHRAN, individually Case No. 2:21-cv-09612-MEMF-PD and 13 as successor-in-interest to Decedent PROTECTIVE ORDER DEFORD COCHRAN, and REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL COCHRAN, CHRISTOPHER MATERIALS EVAN COCHRAN, FLYNN 16 COCHRAN, and HEATHER RODRIGUEZ, individually, 17 Plaintiffs, 18 vs.

CORPORATION (sued individually 20 and as successor-in-interest to BUFFALO PUMPS, INC.), et al. 21 Defendants. 22

26 This action involves allegations related to decedent's work with or around 27 military equipment, including but not limited to, weapons systems aboard various US 1 and discussion of trade secrets, research and development, and/or proprietary 2 information for which special protection from public disclosure or any purpose other 3 than prosecution of this action is warranted. In addition, some of the documents, 4 materials, and information that will be relevant in this matter have disclosure 5 restrictions required by federal regulations of the United States, including, but not 6 limited to, the U.S. Arms Export Control Act, as amended, 22 U.S.C. §§ 2751-2799, 7 the International Traffic in Arms Regulations ("ITAR"), as amended, 22 C.F.R. §§ 8 120-130, the Export Administration Act, as amended, 50 U.S.C. §§ 4611-4613, the 9 Export Control Reform Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 4801-4826, and/or the U.S. Export 10 Administration Regulations ("EAR"), as amended, 15 C.F.R. §§ 730, et seq. and any 11 regulations and orders administered by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign 12 Assets Control Regulations (31 CFR Chapter V) (collectively "U.S. Export Control 13 Laws"). 14 Specifically, ITAR regulations control the export of defense-related articles and 15 services on the United States Munitions List ("USML"). The Deputy Assistant 16 Secretary of State for Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs 17 ("DDTC") interprets and enforces ITAR, and its goal is to safeguard U.S. national 18 security and further U.S. foreign policy objectives. ITAR regulations dictate that, 19 without a valid license from the U.S. government authorizing export of ITAR- 20 controlled articles and information, such information and material pertaining to 21 defense and military-related technologies (for items listed on the USML) may only 22 be shared with U.S. Persons who have not been indicted or otherwise charged with 23 violating the U.S. criminal statutes enumerated in 22 C.F.R. § 120.27 and whose 24 names do not appear on relevant disbarment lists. Government contractors, such as 25 Defendants in this case, face heavy fines, criminal penalties, and loss of government 26 contracts if they, intentionally or not, provide access to ITAR-protected defense 27 articles, services or technical data to persons who are not eligible to receive such 1 Export Control Laws must be stamped to indicate that the materials are subject to 2 export control laws. Any access to the documents must be restricted to ensure that 3 export-controlled information, as defined by the above listed federal statutes and 4 regulations, is not disclosed in violation of U.S. Export Control Laws. Violation of 5 these statutes will subject the producing party to fines and other potential penalties.1 6 This Court has authority to issue a protective order for good cause. See Fed. R. 7 Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Given the national security interests and the potential for severe 8 criminal and civil penalties, there is a clear showing of a particular and specific need 9 for this protective order. See Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F. 2d 418, 429 (9th 10 Cir. 1975); see also 22 U.S.C.A. § 2778(h) (stating that "defense articles or defense 11 services for purposes of this section shall not be subject to judicial review.") In similar 12 circumstances, courts have found good cause for protective orders in cases involving 13 documents and information deemed confidential under U.S. Export Control Laws. 14 See, e.g., Ross-Hime Designs, Inc. v. Unites States, 109 Fed. Cl. 725, 744-46 (2013) 15 (structure descriptions, drawings, and photographs requiring an export license 16 pursuant to the Export Administration Regulations were within the scope of restricted 17 information covered by a protective order); United States v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 18 461 F. Supp. 732 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) (protective order issued for defense exhibits, 19 including applications and licenses deemed confidential pursuant to the Export 20 Administration Act). 21 Export controlled documents produced in discovery in this matter must be 22 handled in such a way so that federal regulations of the various controls on 23 dissemination of the information, as outlined above, are not violated. Accordingly, to 24 expedite the flow of information in discovery, to facilitate the prompt resolution of 25 1 Export control laws provide for substantial penalties, both civil and criminal. Failure to comply 26 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. 27 § 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. § 1 disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, and to adequately restrict the 2 disclosure of export-controlled information as required by the laws of the United 3 States, while ensuring the parties are permitted reasonable and necessary uses of such 4 material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, and to serve the ends of justice, 5 a protective order controlling such discovery is justified in this matter. 6 Wherefore: 7 1. It is hereby ordered by the Court that the following shall apply to 8 information, documents, testimony, excerpts from documents, and other materials 9 produced in this action by the parties to this action, or by third-parties, pursuant to the 10 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States District 11 Court for the Central District of California governing disclosure and discovery: 12 2. Information, testimony, documents, and other materials may be 13 designated ("Designated Material") by any of the parties to this lawsuit or by third 14 parties producing Designated Material in this action, ("Designating Party(ies)") in the 15 manner permitted as set forth in this Protective Order ("this Order"). All such 16 information, testimony, documents, excerpts from documents, and other materials 17 will constitute Designated Material under this Order.

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

Grant Cochran v. Air and Liquid Systems Corporation, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Grant Cochran v. Air and Liquid Systems Corporation (Grant Cochran v. Air and Liquid Systems Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related