Stiles v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, et al

Filing 172

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 11/19/18 GRANTING 165 Motion for Protective Order. Plaintiff shall submit a stipulated proposed protective order absent an AEO provision no later than 11/27/18. Defendants shall serve responses to all outstanding discovery including requested documents by 12/7/18. The subject discovery responses by Defendants shall be without objection. (Coll, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHARIDAN STILES, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

v.

No. 2:14-CV-2234-MCE-DMC

ORDER

WALMART, INC., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

AND RELATED COUNTER-ACTIONS

18
19

Plaintiffs, who are proceeding with retained counsel, bring this civil action

20

alleging intellectual and antitrust claims. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to resolve

21

a dispute concerning an appropriate protective order. The matter was heard before the

22

undersigned in Redding, California, on November 14, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. Jamie Miller, Esq.,

23

appeared telephonically for plaintiffs. Catherine Simonsen, Esq., appeared telephonically for

24

defendant Walmart, Inc. Zachary Page, Esq., appeared telephonically for defendant American

25

International Industries, Inc. After considering arguments from counsel, the matter was

26

submitted.

27

///

28

///
1

1

The parties have agreed generally to the terms of a protective order, but disagree

2

on whether the protective order should include a provision limiting disclosure of certain highly

3

confidential information to attorneys’ eyes only (AEO provision). Specifically, the proposed

4

AEO provision would apply to disclosure of documents reflecting corporate trade secrets,

5

nonpublic research and development data, pricing formulae, inventory management programs,

6

confidential business information not generally known to the public, and customer-related

7

protected data. Having considered the parties’ arguments, the court finds inclusion of an AEO

8

provision in this case is not warranted because defendants have not established prejudice absent

9

such a provision, whereas plaintiffs have established prejudice were such a provision in place

10

given Ms. Stiles’ unique knowledge necessary to prosecution of her case. Moreover, it appears

11

Ms. Stiles has limited funds and will be unable to hire experts to evaluate the evidence on her

12

behalf.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for an order striking an AEO provision (Doc. 165) is

2.

Plaintiff shall submit to the court no later than close of business on

15
16
17
18

granted;

November 27, 2018, a stipulated proposed protective order absent an AEO provision; and
3.

Defendants shall serve responses, including requested documents, to all

19

outstanding discovery requests on or before December 7, 2018. The subject discovery responses

20

by Defendants shall be without objection.

21
22
23

Dated: November 19, 2018
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2