Wendy Littlefield et al v. Homeland Housewares,L.L.C. et al

Filing 246

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO ENFORCE PROTECTIVE ORDER AND STRIKE EXHIBITS AND TESTIMONY, 239 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The court grants Defendants motion and orders as follows: 1. Absent court approval or written agreement between the parties, counsel for Plaintiffs, Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo, LLP, is prohibited from using any Confidential Materials produced by NutriBullet pursuant to the Littlefield Protective Order in any other pending NutriBullet matter in the future; 2. Exhib its 5064 and 5065 to the October 27, 2020 deposition of Paul Dean are hereby stricken, as their use violated the Littlefield Protective Order; 3. All testimony by Paul Dean from his October 27, 2020 deposition related to Exhibits 5064 and 5065, is hereby stricken, including the questions and responses set forth in the transcript of Mr. Deans October 27, 2020 deposition at 49:21-58:17, 61:22-66:17, 67:11-18, 73:20-25, and 78:24-79:5. Further, as set forth in the record, the court orders the parties to select a date for the resumption of the Dean deposition as soon as practicable. IT IS SO ORDERED. (shb)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

WENDY LITTLEFIELD, an individual
and DARRYL LITTLEFIELD, an
individual
Plaintiffs,

14
15
16
17

v.
NUTRIBULLET, L.L.C., a California
Limited Liability Company et al.,

18

Defendants.

19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-06894-DDP (SSx)
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
ENFORCE PROTECTIVE ORDER
AND STRIKE EXHIBITS AND
TESTIMONY

[Dkt. 239]

Presently before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Protective Order and

21

Strike Exhibits and Testimony. (Dkt. 239.) Having considered the submissions of the

22

parties and heard oral argument, the court grants the motion and adopts the following

23

order.

24

II. DISCUSSION

25

The court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the background of this case.

26

Relevant here, the court entered a Protective Order in this action on July 28, 2017. (Dkt.

27

53, (“Littlefield Protective Order”).) Defendants presently move to enforce the Littlefield

28

Protective Order contending that Plaintiffs’ counsel, Boris Treyzon, Esq., violated the

1
2
3
4
5

Littlefield Protective Order by using confidential attorneys eyes only documents that were
produced in this action during the remote deposition of former Capital Brands Chief
Financial Officer, Paul Dean (“Dean”) in the Beebe v. Nutribullet et al. action. (Dkt. 239,
Mot.) Plaintiffs’ counsel does not dispute that he used protected material subject to the
Littlefield Protective Order during the Dean deposition. Counsel argues that his use of

6

the protected material was permitted because the deposition was “confidential and

7

subject to a protective order” under the Beebe action, the Littlefield Protective Order

8

permitted disclosure of protected material to parties who knew the information

9

contained in the documents, and counsel allegedly only used the documents to refresh

10
11

Dean’s memory. (Dkt. 242, Opp.)
The Littlefield Protective Order provides that a “Receiving Party may use Protected

12

Material that is disclosed or produced by another Party . . . in connection with this Action

13

only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle this Action unless another use is

14

authorized by this Order or required by federal statute or regulation applicable to

15

Plaintiffs.” (Protective Order ¶ 6.1 (emphasis added).) The Littlefield Protective Order

16

provides the limited circumstances in which a receiving party may use protected material

17

produced in this action—none of those circumstances are applicable here. (See Protective

18

Order ¶¶ 6.1-7.) There is no provision supporting counsel’s position that protected

19

material subject to the Littlefield Protective Order may be used in a deposition in a

20

separate action regardless of whether that deposition is confidential under a separate

21

protective order. Similarly, there is no provision permitting a receiving party to use

22

protected material to refresh a deponent’s recollection in a separate action.

23

Paragraph 6.3, relied on by Plaintiffs’ counsel, must be read together with

24

Paragraph 6.1. Paragraph 6.1 provides that a receiving party may use protected material

25

“only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle this action . . . .” (Littlefield

26

Protective Order ¶ 6.1.) Paragraph 6.1 goes on to provide that “[s]uch Protected Material

27

may be disclosed only to the categories of persons and under the conditions described in

28

2

1
2
3
4
5
6

this Order.” (Id.) Paragraph 6.3 describes the permissible categories of persons and
conditions, including “the author or recipient of a document containing the information
or a custodian or other person who otherwise possessed or knew the information.”
(Littlefield Protective Order ¶ 6.3(g).) Accordingly, a receiving party may disclose
protected material to a person with knowledge of the information only for prosecuting,
defending, or attempting to settle this action—not a separate action.
Absent a court order or an applicable provision in the Littlefield Protective Order,

7
8

Plaintiffs’ counsel may not use protected material subject to the Littlefield Protective

9

Order for any purpose in a separate action. Because there was no court order or

10

provision authorizing Plaintiffs’ counsel’s use of the protected material in the Dean

11

deposition, counsel violated the Littlefield Protective Order.

12

///

13

///

14

///

15

///

16

///

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

3

1
2
3
4
5

III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the court grants Defendants’ motion and orders as
follows:
1. Absent court approval or written agreement between the parties, counsel for
Plaintiffs, Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo, LLP, is prohibited from using any Confidential

6

Materials produced by NutriBullet pursuant to the Littlefield Protective Order in any

7

other pending NutriBullet matter in the future;

8
9

2. Exhibits 5064 and 5065 to the October 27, 2020 deposition of Paul Dean are
hereby stricken, as their use violated the Littlefield Protective Order;

10

3. All testimony by Paul Dean from his October 27, 2020 deposition related to

11

Exhibits 5064 and 5065, is hereby stricken, including the questions and responses set

12

forth in the transcript of Mr. Dean’s October 27, 2020 deposition at 49:21-58:17, 61:22-

13

66:17, 67:11-18, 73:20-25, and 78:24-79:5.

14
15

Further, as set forth in the record, the court orders the parties to select a date for
the resumption of the Dean deposition as soon as practicable.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: December 30, 2020

20
21

___________________________________

22

DEAN D. PREGERSON

23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

4