Burgoon et al v. Narconon of Northern California et al

Filing 85

ORDER - Final Pretrial Conference Order. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 12/9/2015. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NATHAN BURGOON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8

11

FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
ORDER

v.

9
10

Case No. 15-cv-01381-EMC

NARCONON OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, et al.,

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Defendants.
12

The parties have submitted their pretrial filings. Based on the pretrial filings, the Court

13
14

hereby enters this Final Pretrial Conference Order, ruling as follows.

15

A.

Defendants‟ Motion to File Under Seal (Docket No. 76)

16

Defendants have moved to file certain documents under seal, more specifically, their trial

17

brief in its entirety and certain exhibits attached thereto (i.e., Plaintiffs‟ deposition testimony and

18

the deposition testimony of Plaintiffs‟ witnesses). It appears that Plaintiffs designated the

19

information contained therein confidential but that both parties are in favor of sealing because the

20

documents contain “specific details concerning the reasons [Plaintiffs] attended drug

21

rehabilitation.” Mot. at 2; see also Docket No. 77 (stipulation to filing under seal).

22

Even assuming that the less rigorous “good cause” standard is applicable, see Kamakana v.

23

City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating that “[a] „good cause‟

24

showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to nondispositive motions”),

25

the Court finds that that standard has not been met. Plaintiffs voluntarily brought suit, and their

26

complaint and prior briefing on the motion to compel arbitration already discloses substantial

27

information about the reasons Plaintiffs attended drug rehabilitation, including the fact that they

28

had been taking serious drugs. Moreover, the public has an interest in accessing the information

1

given the seriousness of Plaintiffs‟ claim – i.e., that Defendants are essentially exploiting

2

vulnerable people.
Accordingly, the motion to file under seal is hereby DENIED. Defendants shall publicly

3
4

file all documents at issue within three days of the date of this order.

5

B.

Standing
In their trial brief, Defendants raise a new issue – i.e., that neither Plaintiff has standing to

6
7

sue because neither suffered any injury as a result of the alleged misrepresentations by

8

Defendants. According to Defendants, the only persons who could have suffered injury as a result

9

of the alleged misconduct are Mr. Burgoon‟s wife and Mr. Landers‟s father who paid for the drug

10

treatments.
The Court shall allow Defendants to introduce evidence regarding this theory at the bench

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

trial, and further shall allow Plaintiffs to introduce evidence to rebut this theory. To be clear,

13

however, because Defendants are asking for this issue to be a part of the bench trial, see, e.g.,

14

Docket No. 76-4 (Tr. Br. at 14) (arguing that, “because Plaintiffs suffered no monetary harm from

15

Defendants‟ conduct, the Court should dismiss this case in its entirety for lack of standing”), the

16

Court deems, as waived, any possible contention by Defendants that an arbitrator, rather than this

17

Court, should decide the issue of standing.

18

C.

Time Limits
Having reviewed the parties‟ witness lists, the Court has concerns about whether Plaintiffs

19
20

will be able to present their case within the 3 hours allotted to them. The Court advises Plaintiffs

21

– as well as Defendants – that time limits shall be strictly enforced. Furthermore, deposition

22

designations shall be counted against time (i.e., however long the deposition designations take to

23

read into the record shall be counted against the submitting party).

24

D.

Exhibits

25

Based on the parties‟ exhibit lists, it appears that the parties have reached stipulations on

26

authenticity and admissibility with regard to business records and/or party admissions. The only

27

objections that have been preserved are: (1) relevance and (2) objections to documents not

28

previously produced. All other objections, except for that discussed below, have been waived.
2

1

As to Defendants‟ objection that Plaintiffs have improperly marked as single exhibits the

2

entirety of the drug treatment files for Plaintiffs, the objection is sustained. By Friday, December

3

11, 2015, Plaintiffs shall resubmit their exhibit list to correct this specific deficiency. Plaintiffs

4

must pinpoint what specific documents from the files on which they intend to rely at trial.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10

Dated: December 9, 2015
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3