Kozusko v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nebraska
DecidedNovember 6, 2019
Docket8:19-cv-00397
StatusUnknown

This text of Kozusko v. C. R. Bard, Inc. (Kozusko v. C. R. Bard, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nebraska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kozusko v. C. R. Bard, Inc., (D. Neb. 2019).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

DEBORAH KOZUSKO, Plaintiff, 8:19CV397

vs. PROTECTIVE ORDER C. R. BARD, INC., and BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC., Defendants.

The parties agree to continue to be bound by the stipulated protective ordered filed on the MDL docket on November 10, 2015, in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. (Filing No. 23, at CM/ECF p. 11). IT IS SO ORDERED, The stipulated protective order (attached) remains in effect.

Dated this 6th day of November, 2019.

BY THE COURT: s/ Cheryl R. Zwart United States Magistrate Judge Vase 2.10-MG-U4041-DG0C VLoOCcuMEeNnt 2609 Filed Li/i0/Lo Page 1 Of 224 4 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 || IN RE: MD No. 2641 9 | BARD IVC FILTERS STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 19 | PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION | ORDER 1] 12 13 The parties, through their respective counsel, stipulate to the entry of a protective 14 |) order to govern the dissemination of documents, materials, and other information, 15 || including the substance and content thereof, designated by any party as confidential and 16 || produced by any party in support of motions, in response to written discovery, or during 17 || any formal or informal discovery in this litigation subject to the terms as set forth below. 18 WHEREAS, the defendants to this action, through their counsel, have requested of 19 || the plaintiffs that a protective order preserving the confidentiality of certain documents 20 || and information should be entered by the Court. 21 THEREFORE, [IT IS ORDERED as follows: 22 | I. Definitions 23 I. Confidential Information. “Confidential Information” is defined herein as 24 || any information that constitutes, reflects, discloses, or contains: (1) a “trade secret” or 25 || other confidential research, development, or commercial information” that is suitable for 26 || protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G); and (2) information that 27 || may be protected from disclosure under a party’s constitutional right of privacy such as 28

Case zi lo-md-U4041-DGC Document 2609 Filed LI/LO/Lo Page 2 Of 22

1 || confidential and private psychiatric, psychological, medical condition and/or employment 2 || information. 3 2. Trade Secret. A party, in designating information “Confidential” because 4 || it contains a “Trade Secret”, shall designate only information that meets the definition of 5 || trade secret contained in 18 U.S.C.A. §1839 (West): 6 the term “trade secret” means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including 7 patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedhtes, programs, or 8 codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, 9 photographically, or in writing if -- 10 (A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and Il (B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or _ 12 potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily i ascertainable through proper means by, the public, 3, This Action. “This Action” means IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS 14 PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2641, pending in the transferee 15 district, the United States District Court District of Arizona, as per the Transfer Order 16 issued by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on August 17, 2015 17 (Doc. 31) and all cases filed in or transferred to the District of Arizona as a result of the 18 Transfer Order in the above captioned matter. 19 II. Information Within the Scope of the Protective Order 20 4, This Protective Order shall govern all hard copy and electronic materials, 21 the information contained therein, and all other information produced or disclosed during 22 This Action, including all copies, excerpts summaries, or compilations thereof, whether 23 revealed in a document, deposition, other testimony, discovery response or otherwise, by 24 any party to This Action or its representatives (the “Supplying Party”) to any other party 25 or parties to This Action or their representatives (the “Receiving Party”), whether 26 provided voluntarily, pursuant to formal discovery procedures, or otherwise. 27 28

Case€ ¢4.lo-Md-U4041-Lisl Vocument 209 Filed 11/10/lo Frage 5 Of 42

| 5, The scope of confidentiality protections afforded under this Protective Order 2 || does not include any trial exhibits or trial testimony entered into evidence during the case 3 || known as Phillips v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et al., No. 3:12-cv-00344-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev. June 4 || 1, 2015) (See, Exhibit C, Order denying Bard’s motion to seal trial exhibits and trial 5 || transcripts, Doc. No. 328). Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Protective Order does not 6 || address or alter whether or not Defendants may argue that non-confidential documents 7 || should still be entitled to protection under the work-product doctrine and/or the attorney- 8 || client communication privilege. 9 | Il. Designating Information As “Confidential” Pursuant to This Protective Order 10 6. Documents. Any Supplying Party producing documents that contain 11 || information that meets the definition of Confidential Information as provided in 12 || Paragraph 1 and 2 herein, may designate the contents of the documents as “Confidential” 13 || prior to or at the time of production by placing the following designation on the 14 |) documents: “CONFIDENTIAL — Subject to Protective Order”, Where a document 15 || consists of more than one page, each page of the document shall be designated as such. 16 || Any document or information for which it is impracticable or impossible to affix such a 17 || legend may be designated by written notice to that effect with a reasonable description of 18 || the material in question including a BATES number, where applicable. 19 7. Ifa Supplying Party makes documents or information available for 20 || inspection, rather than delivering copies to another party, no “Confidential” designation is 21 || required in advance of the initial inspection. For the purposes of initial inspection only, 22 || the documents shall be considered “CONFIDENTIAL”. Upon production of the 23 || inspected documents, the Supplying Party shall designate which of the produced or copied 24 || documents and materials are or contain Confidential Information pursuant to Paragraph 6 25 || of this Order. 26 8. Written Discovery. If responses to written discovery contain Confidential 27 || Information as defined in Paragraph 1 and 2 of this Protective Order, the Responding 28 || Party may designate the responsive documents and information, as set forth in

Case lo-md-U4041-DGC Document 469 Filed 11/10/1lo Page 4 of 42

1 || Paragraph 6, with specific indication of the page and line references of the material that is 2 || “Confidential” under the terms of this Protective Order. 3 9. Depositions. The parties may designate as Confidential any deposition 4 || transcript, or portions thereof, in This Action that meets the definition of Confidential 5 || Information provided in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Protective Order, Counsel for the 6 || designating party shall advise the court reporter and the parties on the record during the 7 || deposition or by letter no later than thirty (30) calendar days after the court reporter 8 || provides the parties with the final deposition transcript.

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

Related

Reed v. Amoco Oil Co.
611 F. Supp. 9 (M.D. Tennessee, 1984)
Littlejohn v. BIC Corp.
851 F.2d 673 (Third Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kozusko v. C. R. Bard, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kozusko-v-c-r-bard-inc-ned-2019.