Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. v. Seamaster Logistics, Inc.

Filing 90

ORDER RE: IN CAMERA REVIEW OF FMC DOCUMENT, re: (139 in 3:11-cv-02861-SC) Discovery Letter Brief, (84 in 3:10-cv-05591-SC) Discovery Letter Brief. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on December 3, 2012. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

MITSUI O.S.K. LINES, LTD.,

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

14
15
16

Case Nos.: 10-cv-5591 SC (JSC)
11-cv-2861 SC (JSC)
ORDER RE: IN CAMERA REVIEW
OF FMC DOCUMENT (Dkt. Nos. 82 &
84)

SEAMASTER LOGISTICS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19

Plaintiff submitted an unredated version of the Federal Maritime Commission

20

(“FMC”) document to the Court for in camera review pursuant to the Court’s Orders of

21

November 8 and 14, 2012. (Dkt. Nos. 77 & 80.) Plaintiff also submitted a declaration from

22

an individual identified in the FMC document who fears retaliation should an unredacted

23

version of the document be produced to Defendants. Having reviewed these documents and

24

considered the relevant authority, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s request to compel

25

disclosure of the document in part.

26

The Court previously found that Plaintiff had waived any work product privilege

27

associated with the document by producing it to the FMC. See Dkt. No. 77 at 2:1-6. The

28

only question currently before the Court is whether the document should nonetheless be

1

redacted to shield the identity of a third-party who fears retaliation. Under Federal Rule of

2

Civil Procedure 26, the Court looks to whether the revised redacted information is potentially

3

relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. The Court finds that it is for the reasons

4

stated by Defendant in their November 28, 2012 submission to the Court. (Dkt. No. 84.)

5

However, the Court must also consider the confidentiality concerns of the third-party who

6

fears retaliation. In this regard, the Court finds that the concerns regarding retaliation can be

7

alleviated through a protective order providing that this highly confidential information be

8

designated Attorneys’ Eyes Only; Defendants’ attorneys would not be permitted to share the

9

information with their clients (including in-house attorneys) or anyone else without prior

10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

order of the Court.
Accordingly, the parties shall meet and confer regarding such a protective order. The

12

parties are encouraged to submit a stipulated protective order utilizing language from the

13

Court’s Model Stipulated Protective Order for Litigation Involving Patents, Highly Sensitive

14

Confidential Information and/or Trade Secrets. The parties shall submit either a Stipulated

15

Protective Order or joint letter brief regarding the competing proposals for a protective order

16

on or before Thursday, December 6, 2012.

17
18

This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 82 & 84 in Case No. 10-5591, and Docket Nos.
138 & 139 in Case No. 11-2861.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: December 3, 2012
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

2