Vu v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 63

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY DISPUTE #4 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/16/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TAM VU,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 18-cv-03594-SI
ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY
DISPUTE #4

v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 60

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
On April 11, 2019, the parties filed their fourth joint discovery dispute letter regarding
14

production of a two-page document titled “CWS Manager Guide.” Dkt. No. 60. Defendants

15
argue the CWS Manager Guide should not be produced because it contains information protected
16
17

by the trade secret privilege and is in fact labeled “Proprietary – Trade Secret (Competitively
Sensitive Information)” on the document. Id. at 2. Defendants do not dispute the CWS Manager

18
Guide is relevant, nor, it seems, could they.
19
Liberty Mutual has already produced various guidelines for claims adjusters and their
20
21

supervisors regarding how to handle a “Closed Without Settlement” (“CWS”) claim, such as Ms.
Vu’s. One of the previously produced documents refers to the “CWS Manager Guide.” Thus,

22
there is no question that the document is relevant.
23
Generally, California Evidence Code § 1060 allows the owner of a trade secret to refuse
24

disclosure of the secret if the privilege does not “conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice.”

25
Thus, trade secret privilege cannot unreasonably deny one side evidence required for fair
26
resolution. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court, 7 Cal. App. 4th 1384, 1393 (1992).
27
After the trade secret holder proves its existence, the party seeking discovery must then make
28

1

specific prima facie showing that the information sought is relevant and necessary to a fair

2

resolution of the lawsuit. Cal Evid. Code § 405; Id. at 1393. The party claiming privilege may

3

then provide any claimed disadvantages of a protective order. Id.

4

“unless, after balancing the interests of both sides, [the Court] concludes that under the particular

5

circumstances of the case, no fraud or injustice would result from denying disclosure.” Id.

Disclosure must be ordered

6

Defendants shall submit evidence by Monday, April 22, 2019 regarding (1) whether the

7

CWS Manager Guide is trade secret protected and (2) how limited production of said document

8

under the auspices of a protective order will prejudice them.

9

Plaintiff shall submit its response by Friday April 26, 2019.

10

Defendants may submit a reply by Wednesday May 1, 2019.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 16, 2019
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

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