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

Attorneys for Defendant RAYTHEON COMPANY

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

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

This action involves allegations related to decedent's work with or around military equipment, including but not limited to, weapons systems aboard various US 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. In addition, some of the documents, materials, and information that will be relevant in 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, without a valid license from the U.S. government authorizing export of ITAR- controlled articles and information, such 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 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 disclosed in violation of U.S. Export Control Laws. Violation of these statutes will subject the producing party to fines and other potential penalties.1 This Court has authority to issue a protective order for good cause. See 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. See 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). Export controlled documents produced in discovery in this matter must be handled in such a way so that federal regulations of the various controls on dissemination of the information, as outlined above, are not violated. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information in discovery, to facilitate the prompt resolution of 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. § disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, and to adequately restrict the disclosure of export-controlled information as required by the laws of the United States, while ensuring the parties are 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 controlling such discovery 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, or by third-parties, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for 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 or by third parties producing Designated Material in this action, ("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 "S

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