Zetz v. Boston Scientific Corporation

District Court, E.D. California·Decided June 23, 2020·No. 1:19-cv-00451·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AUTUMN ZETZ, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00451-AWI-SAB

Plaintiffs, ORDER ENTERING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER v. (ECF No. 45) Defendant.

Plaintiffs Autumn Zetz and Eric Zetz (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Boston Scientific Corporation (“Defendant”) hereby enter into the following Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement (“Agreement”) and state as follows: The parties acknowledge that certain documents and information may be sought, produced, or exhibited by and between the parties and non-parties in this proceeding (the “Proceeding”) and that some of these documents may relate to sensitive information which the party or non-party making the production deems confidential in accordance with the rules and standards of the Court. Discovery in this case may involve production of confidential, proprietary, and private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from any purpose other than prosecuting litigation would be warranted. Therefore, it has been agreed by the parties to the Proceeding, through their respective counsel, that to expedite the flow of discovery material and to preserve the confidentiality of certain documents and information, a stipulated confidentiality agreement should be entered. By stipulating to this Agreement, the parties have agreed to be bound by its terms and to request its enforcement by the Court as necessary. 1. This Agreement shall govern all documents and electronically stored information (“ESI”), the information contained therein, and all other information produced or disclosed during the Proceeding whether revealed in a document, deposition, other testimony, discovery response or otherwise, by any party, including any non-party, in this Proceeding (the “Producing Party”) to any other party, including any non-party, when same is designated with the procedures set forth herein. This Agreement is binding upon the parties to the Proceeding, including their respective corporate parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, as well as their respective attorneys, agents, representatives, officers, and employees and others as set forth in this Agreement. This Agreement is also binding on and applies to all non-parties who either produce or receive documents or information in connection with this Proceeding. 2. A Producing Party may designate as “CONFIDENTIAL” any material the producing party believes in good faith constitutes or discloses information or that qualifies for protection pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically information that is trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information, and materials that are deemed confidential under Federal Drug Administration ("FDA") regulations and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA") statutes and/or regulations. 3. Confidential information may be further designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” if the Defendant produces materials that it believes in good faith would, if disclosed, cause substantial economic harm to the competitive position of the entity from which the information was obtained because it relates to research and development material on a new product that has not been approved or cleared by the FDA or a similar regulatory body or reflects concerning a current or new product. The Plaintiff will inform the Producing Party of its intent to disclose such information to any individual who is currently, or who at any time during the pendency of this litigation becomes, a consultant to a competitor of the Producing Party in the pelvic mesh business, or is a consultant to an entity actively investigating entering such business, and Plaintiff will follow the procedures for disclosure of such materials to such individual as provided in Paragraph II.8 of this Agreement. 4. The designation of “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” does not include any material, document, or testimony that has been admitted into evidence in any trial without any protections by the trial court. Any document admitted as a trial exhibit or trial testimony for which a trial court has maintained its “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” designation during trial and that has been sealed or otherwise protected from disclosure by order of the trial court will remain a “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” absent a separate order of the Court in this matter. 5. Challenges to Designations or Redacted Information: Any party may at any time challenge the redaction or the designation of information as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL to serve a legitimate judicial purpose (e.g., to support a dispositive motion) by providing written notice of its objection to the designating party, or, in the case of a deposition, either on the record at a deposition or in writing later. If, after a timely meet-and- confer process, the parties cannot reach agreement, either the designating party or challenging party may, on reasonable notice, apply for an appropriate ruling from the Court. The disputed material shall continue to be treated as designated, or redacted, until the Court orders otherwise. In any such application concerning a ruling on confidentiality or redacted information, the party claiming the designation of confidentiality or redaction has the burden of establishing that such confidential designation or redaction is proper. 6. No person or party subject to this Agreement shall distribute, transmit, or otherwise divulge any material marked CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, except in accordance with this Agreement. material which is marked CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, or the contents thereof, may be used by a party, or a party's attorney, expert witness, consultant, or other person to whom disclosure is made, only for the purpose of this action. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall prevent the use of any document, or the contents thereof, at any deposition taken in this litigation. If a party intends to use material that has been marked as HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL at the deposition of an employee or former employee of a non-producing party in this litigation, then the party shall notify the Producing Party five (5) days in advance of the deposition that it intends to use that category of material. If the parties cannot agree on parameters for usage of the material at the deposition, then the parties will seek the direction of the Court as to the utilization of that category of material in the deposition. 8. Access to Confidential Material: If a party or attorney wishes to disclose any document or other material marked CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, or the contents thereof, to any person retained to work on this action (e.g., expert witness, consultant), the person making the disclosure shall do the following: a. Provide a copy of this Order to the person to whom disclosure is made; b. Inform the person to whom disclosure is made that s/he is bound by this Order; c. Require the person to whom disclosure is made to sign an acknowledgment and receipt of this Order, attached as Exhibit A; d. Instruct the person to whom disclosure is made to return or, in the alternative and with permission of the Producing Party, at the conclusion of this litigation to destroy any document or other material which is marked CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, including notes or memoranda made from CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL material; e. Maintain a list of persons to whom disclosure was made and the CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL materials which were f. At the conclusion of this litigation, gather the CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL materials, copies thereof, and related notes and memoranda, and return them to the party or attorney who originally disclosed them, or destroy them, providing a certificate of compliance with

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

Zetz v. Boston Scientific Corporation, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Zetz v. Boston Scientific Corporation (Zetz v. Boston Scientific Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)