Patriot Rail Corp. v. Sierra Railroad Company
Filing
218
ORDER denying 197 Motion to Enforce Amended Protective Order signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 3/13/12. (Matson, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PATRIOT RAIL CORP., a
Delaware corporation,,
No. 2:09-cv-00009-MCE-EFB
12
Plaintiff,
13
ORDER
v.
14
15
SIERRA RAILROAD COMPANY,
a California corporation,
16
Defendant.
17
______________________________
18
And Related Counterclaim.
______________________________
19
20
21
----oo0oo----
22
23
Defendant and Counterclaimant Sierra Railroad Company
24
(“Sierra”) requests, through the motion presently before the
25
Court, an order enforcing the terms of Amended Protective Order,
26
filed on January 24, 2012, and now in place with respect to the
27
above-captioned matter.
28
///
1
1
Due to ongoing acquisition negotiations between Sierra and a
2
prospective purchaser, Iowa Pacific Holdings (“IPH”), and due
3
diligence disclosures requested by IPH as to pending litigation,
4
including the present case, Sierra filed a motion to permit
5
amendment of the initial May 21, 2009 Protective Order to permit
6
such disclosure.
7
January 24, 2012 (ECF No. 189) and, as indicated above, an
8
Amended Protective Order (ECF No. 190) was issued that same day.
9
Under the terms of the Amended Protective Order, Sierra was
That Motion was granted by order dated
10
permitted to disclose its litigation files to a prospective
11
purchaser like IPH, in order to satisfy due diligence requests,
12
so long as 1) said prospective purchase executes a stipulation to
13
be bound by the terms of the Amended Protective Order; 2) a “list
14
of documents” proposed to be disclosed is provided to Defendant
15
Patriot Rail Corporation (“Patriot”); and 3) Patriot is given the
16
opportunity to designate a “certain narrow category of documents”
17
as “highly confidential.” and subject to only restricted
18
disclosure.
19
designation, Patriot was warned to avoid resort to “mass,
20
indiscriminate, or routinized” categorization.
21
2:25-26.
In discussing use of the “highly confidential”
ECF No. 190,
22
Sierra now asks the Court to enforce the terms of the
23
Amended Protective Order on grounds that Patriot has sought to
24
designate virtually “the entire contents of Sierra’s litigation
25
file, even documents produced by third parties or by Sierra
26
itself, as ‘highly confidential.’”
27
to Sierra, that amounts to just the kind of mass designation that
28
the Amended Protective Order prohibited.
2
Motion, 3: 21-22.
According
1
Sierra also argues that Patriot makes the same kind of due
2
diligence requests of its own potential acquisition targets,
3
including the aborted purchase negotiations that underlie the
4
present litigation.
5
Patriot counters that Sierra has failed to satisfy the
6
second prerequisite for disclosure,1 which requires that Sierra
7
provide a “list of documents” to be provided so that Patriot, in
8
turn, can designate within five days which of those documents
9
should be classified as “highly confidential”.
10
By its own admission, Sierra has simply “described the
11
contents of its litigation file in categorical fashion.”
Motion,
12
2:8.
13
general categories of documents it sought to disclose.
14
of Louis A. Gonzalez, Ex. B.
15
dated February 1, 2001 (see id.), stating that the terms of the
16
Amended Protective Order “clearly directs Sierra to Provide a
17
concise list of documents- not categories.”
18
original.
19
fashion, the documents it sought to protect as “highly
20
confidential” in the face of the general categories of documents
21
identified by Sierra.
22
///
23
///
It accordingly provided counsel for Patriot with only eight
See Decl.
Patriot’s counsel objected by email
Id., emphasis in
Patriot went on to designate, in extremely broad
24
25
26
27
28
1
Although there appears to have been an argument advanced
by Patriot to the effect that IPH must demonstrate that it
remains engaged in acquisition discussions, that contention is
misguided. IPH’s General Counsel, Daniel Marko, previously
submitted a declaration to that effect (ECF No. 171), and it
appears uncontroverted that IPH has executed a stipulation to be
bound by the Amended Protective Order, as that order requires.
3
1
The Court agrees that the specific terms of the Amended
2
Protective Order provide that a “list of documents be provided”
3
before Patriot is obligated to designate any documents so listed
4
as “highly confidential”.
5
by Sierra do not suffice in that regard.
6
sympathetic to Sierra’s claim that it has to make its litigation
7
files available to IPH to satisfy IPH’s due diligence request,
8
and cannot predict just what documents IPH chooses to examine,
9
that does not obviate the terms of the Amended Protective Order
The eight broad categories identified
While the Court is
10
which unequivocally require that a “list of documents” be
11
furnished to Patriot beforehand.
12
Although the Court recognizes that a document by document
13
listing may be onerous and even largely unnecessary to the extent
14
various groups of documents have been generated by Patriot, it is
15
equally clear that more particularity has to be provided by
16
Sierra in order to meet the requirements of the Amended
17
Protective Order.
18
a mutually acceptable means of identification, short of a serial
19
description of each and every piece of paper in Sierra’s
20
litigation file, that will satisfy their concerns.
21
meantime, however, the categorical description offered by Sierra
22
is not adequate and cannot support the present motion.
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
The parties are encouraged to work together on
4
In the
1
Defendant Sierra’s Motion to Enforce Amended Protective Order
2
(ECF No. 197) is accordingly DENIED, without prejudice, at this
3
time.2
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 13, 2012
6
7
_____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Because oral argument was not of material assistance, the
Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.
Local Rule 78-230(h).
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?