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
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?