INGENCO Holdings, LLC v. ACE American Insurance Company
This text of INGENCO Holdings, LLC v. ACE American Insurance Company (INGENCO Holdings, LLC v. ACE American Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 2 3 4 5 6 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 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 —— 15 I. INTRODUCTION 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. 3 IV. CONCLUSION 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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
INGENCO Holdings, LLC v. ACE American Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingenco-holdings-llc-v-ace-american-insurance-company-wawd-2020.