Legal Additions LLC v. Kowalski et al

Filing 284

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE, Motions terminated: 281 Joint Discovery Letter Brief Regarding Post-Judgment Discovery Conducted by Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 04/30/2013. (nclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
11 LEGAL ADDITIONS LLC,

Case No. 08-cv-02754 EMC (NC)

12

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

13

Plaintiff,
v.

Re: Dkt. No. 281

14 JEROME KOWALSKI, et al.,
15

Defendants.

16
17

This case was referred to this Court for all discovery purposes. Dkt. No. 282. In

18 December 2010, Legal Additions obtained a judgment against defendants pursuant to a
19 stipulation. Dkt. No. 281 at 1. Subsequently, the parties engaged in post-judgment
20 discovery in connection with the enforcement of the judgment, which included defendants’
21 production of financial documents in November 2011 (“the November 2011 documents”).
22 Id. On April 12, 2013, the parties filed a joint discovery brief seeking resolution of their
23 dispute regarding the application of the stipulated protective order in this case to the
24 November 2011 documents. Id. The parties disagree about (1) whether the stipulated
25 protective order applies to the November 2011 documents, (2) whether defendants properly
26 designated the documents “Confidential” by so stating in the cover letter accompanying the
27 production but not marking each individual page, (3) whether there is a proper basis for the
28 confidentiality designations, and (4) whether Legal Additions may use or disclose the
Case No. 08-cv-02754 EMC (NC)
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

1 documents in connection with its efforts to enforce the judgment. The Court finds this
2 matter suitable for decision without oral argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Based on the parties’
3 joint letter brief, the Court orders as follows:
4

1.

The Court finds that the stipulated protective order, issued by the Court on

5 November 16, 2009, Dkt. No. 92, applies to the November 2011 documents.
6

2.

The November 2011 documents were produced by defendants in digital form

7 on a CD. Dkt. No. 281 at 1. The CD contains “several years (381 MB; thousands of pages)
8 of bank statements, credit account statements, dunning letters, tax-related documents (e.g.,
9 K-1), and court filings.” Id. The CD was accompanied by a cover letter stating in part
10 “Although it has been impracticable to physically label each of the documents separately as
11 ‘Confidential,’ all of the documents on this disk are hereby deemed to be ‘Confidential,’
12 within the ambit of the stipulated protective order(s) in this action.” Id. The Court finds
13 that, under these circumstances, the cover letter sufficiently designated the documents on
14 the CD as “Confidential” under the stipulated protective order, and defendants did not
15 waive the protections of the stipulated protective order by failing to affix a label to each
16 individual page.
17

3.

To the extent Legal Additions challenges any confidentiality designations as

18 unjustified or made for an improper purpose, that issue is not ripe for adjudication by the
19 Court. The joint letter brief indicates that defendants are willing to reconsider the
20 designations if plaintiff identifies specific documents, the intended recipients, and the
21 purpose of the disclosure. Dkt. No. 281 at 1, 3. Legal Additions’ challenge to the
22 confidentiality designations must comply with the stipulated protective order, and must
23 identify the protected material at issue, set forth in detail the basis for the challenge, and
24 meet and confer with the designating party, allowing that party the opportunity to review
25 the material and to provide a justification for the designation. See Dkt. No. 92 ¶¶ 6.2, 6.3.
26 If, after meeting and conferring, the parties are unable to resolve their dispute, they may
27 submit a joint discovery letter brief in accordance with the Court’s standing order. See
28 Mag. Judge N. Cousins, Civil Standing Order, updated Aug. 24, 2012. The Court finds that,
Case No. 08-cv-02754 EMC (NC)
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

2

he
d
e
gal
ns
ear
den
uasion
1 under th stipulated protective order, Leg Addition would be the burd of persu
enging the confidential designa
c
lity
ations of the November 2011 docu
e
uments. Se Dkt.
ee
2 in challe

3 No. 92 ¶ 6.3.
4

4.

Legal Additions may use the Novembe 2011 docu
m
e
er
uments for the purpose of
e

ng
ment; however, any such use and/ disclosu of the do
/or
ure
ocuments m
must
5 enforcin the judgm
se
w
ms
tipulated pr
rotective ord
der. To the extent the parties
e
6 otherwis comply with the term of the st
w
y
u
d
s
ulated prote
ective
7 dispute whether any specific use and/or disclosure is permitted by the stipu
hat
i
f
on.
rties must m and co
meet
onfer on tha issue
at
8 order, th dispute is not ripe for resolutio The par
e
urt
f.
9 before submitting their dispute to the Cou by joint letter brief.

10
0

An party ma object to this nondispositive pr
ny
ay
o
retrial order within 14 days of the filing
r
e

t
S
11 date of this order. See Civ. L.R. 72-2.
1

12
2

IT IS SO OR
T
RDERED.

13
3

Date: April 30, 2013
3

____
__________
__________
_____
Nath
hanael M. C
Cousins
Unit States M
ted
Magistrate J
Judge

14
4
15
5
16
6
17
7
18
8
19
9
20
0
21
1
22
2
23
3
24
4
25
5
26
6
27
7
28
8
Case No. 08-cv-027 EMC (N
754
NC)
ORDER RE: DISCO
R
OVERY DIS
SPUTE

3