LegalForce RAPC Worldwide P.C. et al v. Demassa

Filing 128

Filed in error - please see ECF No. 129 for correct entry.

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

LEGALFORCE RAPC WORLDWIDE
P.C.,
Plaintiff,

9
v.

DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 121

10
11

Case No. 18-cv-00043-MMC (TSH)

CHRIS DEMASSA,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
13

On September 23, 2019, Plaintiff LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C. filed a unilateral

14

discovery dispute letter. ECF No. 121. Plaintiff proposes to modify the existing protective order

15

to allow it to disclose Defendant Chris Demassa’s confidential information to its damages expert.

16

The letter brief did not have a proof of service, however, and Demassa is not a registered efiling

17

user. See ECF No. 109. Accordingly, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve its letter brief on

18

Demassa on September 24, 2019 and to file a proof of service. ECF No. 123. Plaintiff filed a

19

proof of service on September 24, stating that it had served Demassa with the letter brief. ECF

20

No. 127. The Court ordered Demassa to file a response to Plaintiff’s letter brief by September 27,

21

2019. ECF No. 123. The Court’s order contained a certificate of service stating that the order was

22

served on Demassa by mail. ECF No. 123-1. However, it is now October 3, 2019, and Demassa

23

has not filed a response. Plaintiff’s letter brief indicates this is a matter of some urgency because

24

expert reports are due October 7, 2019, though Plaintiff states it will move to amend the existing

25

scheduling order. ECF No. 121.

26

Plaintiff’s motion is reasonable. Experts are normally permitted to see confidential

27

materials produced in litigation. Indeed, the language Plaintiff proposes to add to the protective

28

order is taken from this District’s model protective order and has been used in numerous cases in

1

this District. Further, despite having had the opportunity to oppose Plaintiff’s request, Demassa

2

has not filed any opposition. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED.
The Court cannot enter the proposed order that Plaintiff submits, however, because it is

3
4

called a “stipulated protective order,” and it is set up for the parties’ signatures, and that order is

5

not actually stipulated to. Therefore, the Court ORDERS that the protective order at ECF No. 84

6

is modified as follows:
1.

7

For purposes of the protective order, an “expert” is a person with specialized

8

knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a party or

9

its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this action.
2.

10

Pursuant to paragraph 3.1 of the protective order, Plaintiff may disclose Protected

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Material to experts of Plaintiff to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation and

12

who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” in Exhibit A of Exhibit A

13

of ECF No. 121-1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated:

17
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2