Dugan et al v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC

Filing 205

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas denying 124 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 126 Motion for Discovery (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JOHN DUGAN, et al.,

Case No. 12-cv-02549-WHA (NJV)

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

LLOYDS TSB BANK, PLC,
Defendant.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 124, 126

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER RE LLOYDS’ SECOND
MOTION TO RETAIN
CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS;
ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

12
13

Before the court is defendant Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC’s second motion to retain

14

confidentiality designations. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), the court takes the matter under

15

submission without oral argument. The May 7, 2013 hearing on this matter is hereby vacated.

16

As an initial matter, the court commends the parties for resolving the vast majority of their

17

disputes on their own: after filing its motion and meeting and conferring with Plaintiffs, Lloyds

18

withdrew dozens of confidentiality claims, and Plaintiffs withdrew dozens of challenges. See Doc.

19

No. 195. As a result of the parties’ efforts, only five passages in the Sum deposition remain at

20

issue before the court. Id. Based on the declaration of Nicholas Harrison (Doc. No. 125) and on

21

the principles the court already set forth in its prior discovery orders (see Doc. Nos. 148 & 161),

22

the court orders as follows:

23

Deposition of Eric Sum (“Sum Dep.”) at 112:19-23. The question and answer that

24

Lloyds has designated as confidential logically follow prior questions and answers that Lloyds no

25

longer claims are confidential (see Sum Dep. at 108:1-109:3), and prior questions and answers that

26

Lloyds never designated as confidential (see id. at 109:11-112:18). Moreover, Sum did not know

27

the answer to the question posed, and the court already concluded that this type of testimony did

28

not warrant confidentiality. See Doc. No. 148 at 4-5. Although Lloyds explains generally why it

1

considers information relating to these topics to be confidential, Lloyds does not explain how

2

disclosure of this testimony could harm its competitive interests or why the information would be

3

entitled to protection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 or Local Rule 79-5. See Doc. No. 125 (Harrison

4

Declaration) at ¶¶ 6-8, 13, 17. Accordingly, Lloyds’ motion as to this passage is denied.

5

Sum Dep. at 155:9-15. In this exchange, Sum does not discuss specific components of the

6

LTP charge, a topic which the court previously concluded should be kept confidential. See Doc.

7

No. 148 at 9-10. In fact, Sum only testifies that the category of information he identified as a

8

component “might be a consideration” with respect to the LTP charge. Sum Dep. at 155:15.

9

Although Lloyds explains generally why it considers information relating to these topics to be
confidential, Lloyds does not explain how disclosure of this testimony could harm its competitive

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

interests or why the information would be entitled to protection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 or Local

12

Rule 79-5. Cf. Doc. No. 125 (Harrison Declaration) at ¶¶ 6-8, 17. Lloyds’ motion as to this

13

passage is denied.

14

Sum Dep. at 158:4-12. This testimony addresses one of the specific components of the

15

LTP charge that this court has previously kept confidential. See Doc. No. 148 at 9. Lloyds’

16

motion as to this passage is granted.

17
18
19
20
21
22

Sum Dep. at 163:5-7. This testimony covers the same topic as that addressed at 155:9-15,
and Lloyds’ motion is denied for the reasons stated above.
Sum Dep. at 168:17-24. This testimony covers the same topic as that addressed at 158:412, and Lloyds’ motion is granted for the reasons stated above.
Lloyds lodged complete, un-redacted copies of the depositions of Sum and Harrison with
the court and moved to file the documents under seal. Doc. No. 124. Because Lloyds already de-

23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1

designated many of the passages at issue in the motion to seal, and for the reasons stated above,

2

that motion is denied. Lloyds shall proceed in the manner described by the Local Rules. See Civil

3

L.R. 79-5(e).

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8
9

Dated: April 23, 2013
______________________________________
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3