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

Filing 129

Discovery Order granting 121 Plaintiff's request to modify the existing protective order to allow it to disclose Defendants confidential information to its damages expert. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 10/3/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2019)

Download PDF
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. 3 The Court cannot enter the proposed order that Plaintiff submits, however, because it is 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: 7 1. 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. 10 2. 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. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: October 3, 2019 17 THOMAS S. HIXSON United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 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?