Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. IQVIA Holdings Inc.

District Court, S.D. California·Decided February 17, 2021·No. 3:19-cv-01865·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 | MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE Case No. 19-cv-01865-GPC (DEB) SYSTEMS, INC., a California 1] corporation: MEDIMPACT PROTECTIVE ORDER INTERNATIONAL LLC, a California 12 || limited liability compan - and MEDIMPACT INT RNATIONAL 13 | HONG KONG LTD., a Hong Kong company, 14 15 Plaintiffs, 1 6 Vv. IQVIA INC., a Connecticut 17 corporation ; IQVIA Ltd., a UK company; IQVIA AG, a Swiss 18 || company; OMAR GHOSHEH, individually; and AMIT SADANA, 19 | individually, and DOES 1-20, 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 19-cv-01865-GPC (DEB) PROTECTIVE ORDER

] The Court recognizes that at least some of the documents and information 2 || (“materials”) being sought through discovery in the above-captioned action are, for 3 || competitive reasons, normally kept confidential by the Parties. The Parties have 4 || agreed to be bound by the terms of this Protective Order (“Order’’) in this action. 5 The materials to be exchanged throughout the course of the litigation between 6 || the parties may contain trade secret or other confidential research, technical, cost, 7 || price, marketing or other commercial information, as is contemplated by Federal 8 || Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G). The purpose of this Order is to protect the 9 || confidentiality of such materials as much as practical during the litigation. 10 || THEREFORE: 12 1. The term “confidential information” will mean and include information 13 | contained or disclosed in any materials, including documents, portions of documents, 14 | answers to interrogatories, responses to requests for admissions, trial testimony, 15 || deposition testimony, and transcripts of trial testimony and depositions, including 16 || data, summaries, and compilations derived therefrom that is deemed to be 17 || confidential information by any Party or subpoenaed non-party to which it belongs. 18 2. The term “materials” will include, but is not be limited to: documents; 19 || correspondence; memoranda; bulletins; blueprints; specifications; customer lists or 20 || other material that identify customers or potential customers; price lists or schedules 21 || or other matter identifying pricing; minutes; telegrams; letters; statements; cancelled 22 || checks; contracts; invoices; drafts; books of account; worksheets; notes of 23 || conversations; desk diaries; appointment books; expense accounts; recordings; 24 || photographs; motion pictures; compilations from which information can be obtained 25 || and translated into reasonably usable form through detection devices; sketches; 26 27 28

Daan NTR 10 azwr K10LE ODM □□□□□□□□

1 || drawings; notes (including laboratory notebooks and records); reports; instructions; 2 || disclosures; other writings; models and prototypes and other physical objects. 3 3. The term “counsel” will mean (a) outside counsel of record (including 4 | other attorneys, paralegals, secretaries, and other support staff employed in the law 5 || firms identified herein: Jones Day, Dentons US LLP, Klinedinst PC, Pillsbury 6 || Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, and Baker 7 || & McKenzie LLP); (b) in-house litigation counsel; (c) other in-house counsel whose 8 || responsibilities do not include operational business or competitive decision-making 9 || authority, provided disclosure to counsel covered by subparagraphs (b) and (c) hereof 10 || is reasonably necessary for the prosecution or defense and conduct of this litigation, 11 | and (d) Court-approved in-house counsel for Defendants—currently Laura Kibbe, 12 || Lisa Katz, and Maureen Nakly—pursuant to the Court’s February 4, 2021 Order at 13 || ECF No. 173. 15 4. Each Party or subpoenaed non-party to this litigation that produces or 16 || discloses any materials, answers to interrogatories, responses to requests for 17 || admission, trial testimony, deposition testimony, and transcripts of trial testimony 18 || and depositions, or information that the producing party believes should be subject 19 || to this Protective Order (hereinafter, the “Producing Party’) may designate the same 20 || as “CONFIDENTIAL,” “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” or “OUTSIDE COUNSEL 21 | AND COURT APPROVED IN-HOUSE COUNSEL ONLY.” 22 (a) Designation as “CONFIDENTIAL”: Any Producing Party may 23 designate information as “CONFIDENTIAL” only if, in the good faith 24 belief of such Producing Party and its counsel, the unrestricted 25 disclosure of such information could be potentially prejudicial to the 26 business or operations of such designating party. 27 (b) Designation as ‘ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”: Any Producing Party 28 may designate information as “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” only if, 2 Ao NT 10 ne AIOLE □□□ □□□□□□

] in the good faith belief of such Producing Party and its counsel, the 2 information is among that considered to be highly sensitive by the 3 designating party, including but not limited to research, technical, 4 commercial, financial, or pricing information, or such other proprietary 5 or sensitive business and commercial information that is not publicly 6 available, disclosure of which could reasonably result in commercial, 7 financial, or business harm. 8 (c) Designation as “OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND COURT APPROVED 9 IN-HOUSE COUNSEL ONLY”: Any Producing Party may designate 10 information as “OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND COURT APPROVED IN- 1] HOUSE COUNSEL ONLY” only if, in the good faith belief of such 12 Producing Party and its counsel, the information would disclose trade 13 secrets or Source Code. 14 “Source Code” includes extremely sensitive information or items 15 representing computer code and associated comments and revision 16 histories, formulas, engineering specifications, or schematics that define 17 or otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or structure of software or 18 hardware designs, disclosure of which to another Party or non-party 19 would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided 20 by less restrictive means. To the extent production of Source Code 21 becomes necessary in this case, a Producing Party may designate Source 22 Code as “OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND COURT APPROVED IN- 23 HOUSE COUNSEL ONLY” if it comprises or includes confidential, 24 proprietary or trade secret Source Code. 25 (d) Ifa Producing Party chooses to designate material “ATTORNEYS’ 26 EYES ONLY” or “OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND COURT APPROVED 27 IN-HOUSE COUNSEL ONLY” it must mark those documents 28 provisionally with that designation to give the receiving party ye Ao NT 10 ne AIOLE □□□ □□□□□□

1 (hereinafter, the “Receiving Party’’) a reasonable opportunity to review 2 and evaluate whether the Receiving Party agrees with the designation. 3 The Producing Party will also identify in a cover letter to the production, 4 by bates numbers, all documents that have been so marked. If the 5 Receiving Party has questions about and/or objections to any of the 6 provisional designations it may proceed to address any such questions 7 and/or objections according to the provision of Paragraph 17 hereof. In 8 the absence of notice by the Receiving Party of questions about and/or 9 objections to the designations “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” or 10 “OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND COURT APPROVED IN-HOUSE 1] COUNSEL ONLY,” the designation will be considered final for 12 purposes of any use of such documents in the matter. 13 5. In the event the Producing Party elects to produce materials for 14 | inspection, no marking need be made by the Producing Party in advance of the initial 15 || inspection. For purposes of the initial inspection, all materials produced will be 16 || considered as “OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND COURT APPROVED IN-HOUSE 17 || COUNSEL ONLY,” and must be treated as such pursuant to the terms of this Order.

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

Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. IQVIA Holdings Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. IQVIA Holdings Inc. (Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. IQVIA Holdings Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp.
960 F.2d 1465 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)