Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. v. Toyama Partners, LLC et al

Filing 266

ORDER by Judge Nandor J. Vadas granting in part and denying in part #238 Defendants' Motion to Compel Compliance with Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement. Counsel for all parties ordered to engage in a meaningful in-person meet and confer regarding any remaining designation issues. (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 NOT FOR CITATION 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 EUREKA DIVISION 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 No. CV 10-0325 SI (NJV) DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiff, v. TOYAMA PARTNERS LLC, et al., Defendants. (Docket No. 238) / 16 The district court has referred the parties’ pending discovery motions and all future discovery 17 disputes to this Court for determination. Doc. Nos. 202, 248. On June 6, 2011, Defendants Toyama 18 Partners, LLC, Peter Pau, Susana Pau, Sand Hill Property Management Co., and Capella-Mowry, 19 LLC moved to compel Plaintiff to comply with the joint protective order entered in July 2010. Doc. 20 No. 238. Plaintiff Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. opposed the motion. Doc. No. 233. Pursuant to Local 21 Rule 7-1(b), Defendants’ motion is taken under submission without oral argument. Having carefully 22 considered the arguments of the parties and the papers submitted, and for good cause shown, the 23 Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion. 24 25 DISCUSSION On July 14, 2010, the district court issued approved the joint stipulation on confidentiality 26 entered into by Plaintiff, Defendant Toyama, and former Defendant Comerica Bank. Doc. No. 83. 27 Pursuant to this stipulation, the parties may designate as “Confidential” the following: 28 (I) confidential personal information and/or (ii) confidential business information, which may be disclosed to the Parties for the purposes of litigation, but which must be protected against disclosure to third parties. The Parties shall designate 1 documents as Confidential only to the extent reasonably necessary to preserve the confidentiality of the Confidential information. 2 Stip. Confidentiality Agmt at III.A. Pursuant to this stipulation, the parties may designate as 3 “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” any information 4 5 6 7 which any Party or third party in good faith believes contains, refers to, or relates to Confidential Information and concerns matters of central importance to the operation of the producing party, including but not limited to trade secrets and financial information.... The Parties shall designate Information as Attorneys’ Eyes Only to the extent reasonably necessary to preserve the confidentiality of the Attorneys’ Eyes Only Information. 8 Stip. Confidentiality Agmt at III.B. The parties confirmed at the July 14, 2011 hearing on other 9 pending discovery disputes that Defendants Peter Pau d/b/a Sand Hill Property Co., Susana Pau, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Sand Hill Management, and Capella have not yet adopted the terms of the July 12, 2010 joint 11 stipulation on confidentiality.1 Therefore, only Defendant Toyama may challenge Plaintiff’s 12 designations pursuant to the joint stipulation. 13 Defendant argues that Plaintiff has designated everything it has produced as “Confidential.” 14 Plaintiff opposes the motion, stating that it is willing to negotiate its designations with Defendant, 15 but argues that Defendant should be required to identify which documents Defendant believes 16 should be de-designated. 17 The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff cannot simply designate its entire document 18 production as confidential. This defeats the purpose of a confidentiality agreement and the express 19 agreement within the joint stipulation that the parties will designate documents as “Confidential” 20 only to the extent reasonably necessary to preserve the confidentiality of this information. For 21 example, Plaintiff has designated certain documents as confidential that have been publicly filed. 22 These documents are not confidential and should not be designated as such. Plaintiff is ORDERED 23 to de-designate anything it has produced that has been publicly filed or is publicly available because 24 these documents are not confidential. After Plaintiff de-designates all documents that have been 25 publicly filed or are publicly available, the Court ORDERS counsel for all parties to engage in a 26 meaningful in-person meet and confer regarding any remaining designation issues. Plaintiff’s 27 1 28 The parties’ dispute regarding other issues related to the July 14, 2010 joint stipulation that were raised in the parties’ joint June 3, 2011 letter (Doc. No. 216) was heard on July 14, 2011 and will be addressed in a separate order. 2 1 non-local counsel may participate in the “in-person” meet and confer by video conference and/or 2 telephone. Before this meet and confer, Defendant is ORDERED to identify sample documents (i.e., 3 documents that have not been publicly filed or are publicly available), that it believes Plaintiff has 4 improperly designated. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 9 Dated: July 15, 2011 NANDOR J. VADAS United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?