Michael Edenborough v. ADT, LLC

Filing 36

ORDER RE PROTECTIVE ORDER re 33 Joint Discovery Letter Brief filed by Michael Edenborough. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 8, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL EDENBOROUGH,

Case No. 16-cv-02233-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER RE PROTECTIVE ORDER

9
10

Re: ECF No. 33

ADT, LLC,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Now before the Court is the parties’ letter brief regarding the terms of the protective order

14

that will govern discovery in this action. ECF No. 33. Defendant ADT wants to include a

15

provision requiring any party wishing to share the opposing party’s confidential or highly

16

confidential information with an expert witness to give advance notice and an opportunity to

17

object to the opposing party. Id. at 1. Plaintiff objects to this provision.

18

The Court will order that the provision be included. It represents a sensible solution to the

19

danger that one of Defendant’s competitors might come into possession of Defendant’s

20

confidential information; it allows the Court to determine whether such disclosure should be

21

allowed based on the facts specific to the expert witness and confidential information actually at

22

issue; and it places little burden on the Plaintiff. In this regard, the Court notes that the provision

23

does not apply to all expert witnesses, but only those who own, work for, or consult with a

24

competitor of the designating party, or who are anticipated at the time of disclosure to become owners,

25

employees, or consultants of a competitor of the designating party. In other words, the provision is

26

limited to those experts about whom a designating party might have a legitimate concern.

27

The adoption of such provisions is common in this district. Indeed, in one of the principal cases cited

28

by Plaintiff, the court appears to have been following the same procedure suggested here by

1

Defendant. Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am. Inc. v. Applied Materials Inc., No. 95-cv-

2

20169-RMW(EAI), 1996 WL 908654, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 1996).

3

Plaintiff argues that the requested provision will “simply bog down discovery and create

4

the potential for a long series of expert vetoes.” ECF No. 33 at 2. Should that occur, Plaintiff can

5

ask the Court to reconsider the order it now makes. The Court does not anticipate that any party

6

will abuse its rights under the protective order so as to delay, withhold, or frustrate discovery.

7

Similarly, if Plaintiff believes that discovery material has been incorrectly designated as

8

Confidential or Highly Confidential pursuant to the parties’ protective order, Plaintiff may

9

challenge that designation in Court.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dated: July 8, 2016
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2