INGENCO Holdings, LLC v. ACE American Insurance Company

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 2 3 4 5 6 9 INGENCO HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., 10 pein Case No. 2:13-cv-00543-RAJ 1 “ ORDER 12 || ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, 13 Defendant. 14 —— 16 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to modify the protective order 17 || and for other various relief. Dkt. # 179. The Court DENIES in part and DEFERS in 18 || part Plaintiffs’ motion. 19 Il. BACKGROUND 20 Guild Associates, Ltd. (“Guild”) is party to this action only as an intervenor to 21 || designate its proprietary and trade secret information under the current Protective Order. 22 || Plaintiffs claim that Guild has habitually over-designated materials as confidential. Dkt. # 23 || 179 at 2. 24 In July 2019, Plaintiff Bio-Energy (Washington), LLC (“BEW”) provided Guild 25 || with a detailed list of documents it may need for trial. BEW requested that Guild 26 || immediately start its review those documents and recently attempted to obtain an order 27 || from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio for the same. Jd. at 3-4. That 28 |! ORDER -1

1 || effort was only moderately successful and now Plaintiffs move for relief in this court. 2 || Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to limit the definition of “Confidential” materials in the 3 || protective order to those materials containing bona-fide trade secrets; to order Guild to 4 || review all documents previously designated as “Confidential” and remove confidential 5 || designations for documents that do not contain trade secrets; and to appoint a Special 6 || Master to hear disputes regarding confidentiality. Jd. at 9-12. Plaintiffs assert that without 7 || this relief, it will be virtually impossible to conduct a public trial. Id. 8 Ill. DISCUSSION 9 After reviewing the submissions by the parties, the Court finds no basis to modify 10 || the protective order. Protective orders may cover confidential, proprietary, or private 11 || information that warrants special protection. LCR 26(c)(2). Therefore, Guild was not 12 || limited to designating trade secrets when it first started producing documents. See Foltz v. 13 |) State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that a concern in 14 || modifying a protective order is whether that order was relied upon in the decision to 15 || produce documents); Beckman Indus. Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 475 (9th Cir. 16 || 1992). “[C]hanging the ground rules later is to be avoided because protective orders that 17 || cannot be relied upon will not foster cooperation through discovery.” Wright, Miller & 18 || Marcus § 2044.1 (3d. ed.) (requiring litigants to redo discovery is wasteful and delays 19 || litigation). 20 The main issue is really the procedure by which Guild will review confidential 21 || materials for trial. Ultimately, the more efficient process would be for Plaintiffs to identify 22 || what documents they reasonably intend to use before Guild reviews for confidentiality. 23 || Plaintiffs’ proposal of having Guild review and possibly re-designate all produced 24 || documents imposes an unnecessary burden on a non-party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1). 25 || As such, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to provide Guild and the Court with the exhibit 26 || lists and deposition designations for Guild’s confidentiality review 30 days after the close 27 || of discovery. Guild shall then have 30 days to file a motion to seal in accordance with the 28 |! ORDER —2

1 || local rules of this Court. At that time, the Court will determine whether the appointment 2 || of a Special Master is necessary. 4 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES in part and DEFERS in part 5 || Plaintiffs’ motion. 6 DATED this_4 “day of February, 2020. 8 : 10 11 The Honorable Richard“. Jones b United States District Court Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 |! ORDER -3