Potter v. Crane Co.

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided September 1, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-00276·Unknown

Opinion

1 Nevada Bar No. 8656 Alexandria L. Layton, Esq. 2 Nevada Bar No. 14228 EVANS FEARS & SCHUTTERT LLP 3 6720 Via Austi Parkway, Suite 300 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 4 Telephone: 702-805-0290 Facsimile: 702-805-0291 5 Email: jschuttert@efstriallaw.com Email: alayton@efstriallaw.com 6 Attorneys for Defendants Northrop Grumman 7 Systems Corporation, United Technologies Corporation, and Goodrich Corporation 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 10 11 JORDAN J. POTTER, Case No.: 2:20-cv-00276-RFB-VCF 12 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER 13 vs. REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL AND EXPORT-CONTROLLED 14 CRANE CO., DJO, LLC, EATON AEROQUIP, MATERIALS LLC; GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION; 15 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GOODRICH CORPORATION f/k/a The BF 16 Goodrich Company; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Individually and as 17 successor to Alliedsignal, Inc., and The Bendix Corporation, IMO INDUSTRIES, INC.; IMO 18 INDUSTRIES, IN., Individually and as successor in interest to Adel Fasteners; NORTHROP 19 GRUMMAN CORPORATION; OLD ORCHARD INDUSTRIAL CORP.; PNEUMO ABEX LLC, 20 Individually and a successor by merger to PNEUMO ABEX CORPORATION, successor-in- 21 interest to ABEX CORPORATION f/k/a AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE COMPANY, and 22 FOUNDRY COPMANY and THE AMERICAN BRAKEBLOK CORPORATION, f/k/a THE 23 AMERICAN BRAKE MATERIALS CORPORATION; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES 24 CORPORATION; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through 50, 25 inclusive, 26 Defendants. 27 28 1 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 This action may involve production of documents and discussion of trade secrets, research 3 and development, and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure or any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted.1 In addition, some of 5 the documents, materials, and information that will be relevant in this matter have disclosure 6 restrictions required by federal regulations of the United States, including, but not limited to, the 7 U.S. Arms Export Control Act, as amended, 22. U.S.C. §§ 2751-2799, the International Traffic in 8 Arms Regulations (“ITAR”), as amended, 22 C.F.R. §§ 120-130, the Export Administration Act, 9 as amended, 50 U.S.C. §§ 2401-2420, the Export Control Reform Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 4801-4826, 10 and/or the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), as amended, 15 C.F.R. §§ 730, et seq. 11 and any regulations and orders administered by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets 12 Control Regulations (31 CFR Chapter V) (collectively “U.S. Export Control Laws”). Violation of 13 these statutes might subject the parties to fines or other potential penalties. See 22 U.S.C. 2278; 22 14 C.F.R. 127.3; 50 U.S.C. 1705; 15 C.F.R. 764.3. 15 This Court has authority to issue a protective order for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). 16 Given the national security interests and the potential for severe criminal and civil penalties, there 17 is a clear showing of a particular and specific need for this protective order. Blankenship v. Hearst 18 Corp., 519 F. 2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). 19 These export control requirements make it imperative that documents produced in discovery 20 are handled in such a way so that federal laws and regulations on dissemination of the information 21 are not violated. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 22 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, and to adequately restrict the 23 disclosure of export-controlled information as required by the laws of the United States, while 24 ensuring the parties are permitted reasonable and necessary uses of such material in preparation for 25 and in the conduct of trial, and to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information 26 is justified in this matter. 27 1 No parties’ agreement to this Protective Order is intended to evidence or reflect any waiver or other compromise of 28 the jurisdictional challenges asserted in any parties’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 1 Wherefore: 2 1. It is hereby ordered by the Court that the following shall apply to information, 3 documents, testimony, excerpts from documents, and other materials produced in this action by the 4 parties to this action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules of 5 the District of Nevada governing disclosure of information and discovery. 6 2. Information, testimony, documents and other materials may be designated 7 (“Designated Material”) by any of the parties to this lawsuit, (“Designating Party(ies)”) in the 8 manner permitted as set forth in this Protective Order (“Order”). All such information, testimony, 9 documents, excerpts from documents, and other materials will constitute Designated Material under 10 this Order. The designations shall be (a) “CONFIDENTIAL” (“Confidential”); and/or, (b) 11 “SENSITIVE—SUBJECT TO EXPORT CONTROL—U.S. Arms Export Act, International 12 Traffic In Arms Regulations, Export Administration Act, U.S. Export Administration Regulations, 13 Export Control Reform Act,” (“Export-Controlled”) and/or (c) “SENSITIVE—SUBJECT TO 14 NISPOM—National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, DoD 5220.22-M.”. 15 3. Documents shall be designated by stamping or otherwise marking the documents 16 with the words “CONFIDENTIAL,” and/or “SENSITIVE—SUBJECT TO EXPORT 17 CONTROL—U.S. Arms Export Act, International Traffic In Arms Regulations, Export 18 Administration Act, U.S. Export Administration Regulations, Export Control Reform Act,” and/or 19 “SENSITIVE—SUBJECT TO NISPOM—National Industrial Security Program Operating 20 Manual, DoD 5220.22-M,” thus clearly identifying the category of Designated Material for which 21 protection is required under the terms of this Order. Depending on the nature and substance of the 22 document it may designated with more than one designation under this Order. Designated Material 23 not reduced to documentary form shall be designated by the Designating Party in a reasonably 24 equivalent way. 25 4. Nondisclosure of information designated as Confidential: 26 a. Information may be designated as Confidential if the information constitutes 27 (i) a trade secret as defined under law; (ii) confidential or proprietary business information, the 28 disclosure of which might adversely affect or prejudice the business or the competitive position of 1 the Designating Party or any of that party’s past or present subsidiaries, affiliated companies, or 2 divisions, within that party’s trade or business; (iii) non-public financial information relating to the 3 Designating Party or any of that party’s present or past subsidiaries, affiliated companies or 4 divisions; (iv) non-public information which the Designating Party is under an obligation to any 5 other person to maintain in confidence; or (v) any information otherwise protected from disclosure 6 by the applicable rules of civil procedure and/or rules of evidence.

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

Potter v. Crane Co., (D. Nev. 2020).

Potter v. Crane Co. (Potter v. Crane Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related