Krylova v. Genentech, Inc.

Filing 38

ORDER. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 03/12/2013. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 IRINA KRYLOVA, Plaintiff, 8 9 v. ORDER GENENTECH, INC., 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C 12-4120 PJH Defendant. _______________________________/ 12 13 Before the court is the request by defendant for 1) approval of its proposed 14 protective order regarding designation and use of confidential information, and 2) an order 15 requiring plaintiff to return documents containing defendant’s proprietary and confidential 16 information. The court has reviewed the letter briefs submitted by the parties and orders as 17 follows. 18 With regard to the latter request, plaintiff shall return all Genentech proprietary and 19 confidential information as required by the Proprietary Information Agreement that she 20 signed upon accepting employment at Genentech no later than Friday March 15, 2013. 21 Plaintiff’s return of the documents was inappropriately conditioned upon a promise by 22 defendant to produce them back to her pursuant to a request for production of documents. 23 Plaintiff’s obligation to return the documents is entirely unrelated to defendant’s discovery 24 obligations. Plaintiff may propound discovery requests and defendant may respond as 25 permitted by the federal and local rules. If plaintiff is not satisfied by any response of 26 defendant, plaintiff must simply follow the rules by first meeting and conferring with 27 defendant, and then filing a motion to compel if necessary. The preemptive self-help in 28 which plaintiff is currently engaging will not be condoned by the court. 1 With regard to the protective order, it is not clear from plaintiff’s March 7, 2013 2 response that a dispute remains given the following language, “Plaintiff has modified her 3 position. She does not object, in principle, to the protective order proposed by Defendant in 4 that it puts the onus on the designating party to bring a motion if the issues are not 5 resolved. Plaintiff has no objection whatsoever to the Northern District form of protective 6 order.” While plaintiff does express some concern about potential over-designations by 7 defendant, it is not clear which, if any, of the minor suggested modifications to the model 8 order are objectionable. 9 Accordingly, the parties shall once again meet and confer about a stipulated protective order to be submitted to the court as soon as practicable. If the parties are 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 unable to agree, they shall e-file a joint request (in letter form) no later than Friday March 12 15, 2013, that the court approve either the model order without modification or defendant’s 13 proposed modified version of the model order. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 12, 2013 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 16 17 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?