City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust v. RH, Inc. et al

Filing 120

Discovery Order re: 115 Joint Discovery Letter Brief. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 1/10/2019. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL
EMPLOYEES' & SANITATION
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT TRUNITED
STATES OF AMERICAT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 17-cv-00554-YGR (TSH)
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 115

v.
RH, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

14

The parties filed a joint letter brief concerning a dispute over whether 21 deposition

15

exhibits and certain deposition testimony qualify as “Confidential” under paragraph 2.2(iii) of the

16

Protective Order in this action. ECF No. 115. The Court held a telephonic hearing on December

17

21, 2018. This order follows.

18

The Protective Order defines Confidential information or items as those that are “(i)

19

prohibited from disclosure by statute; (ii) trade secrets; (iii) confidential research, development,

20

proprietary, or commercial information; (v) private individual identificatory information . . .”

21

ECF No. 81. Paragraph 5.1 requires the “Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material

22

for Protection.” Id. It states that “[m]ass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are

23

prohibited.” Id. Section 6 of the Protective Order sets forth the process for challenging

24

confidentiality designations.

25

Because the documents at issue in this challenge were produced by Defendants, they have

26

the burden to show the documents are confidential. Id. ¶ 6.3. Defendants argue the documents

27

fall into three categories of confidential information: internal financial information, vendor

28

information and RH’s business strategy. Having reviewed the 21 deposition exhibits, the Court

1

issues this order on them to provide guidance to the parties in resolving future challenges. The

2

parties should also use this guidance to review the submitted deposition testimony. In general, the

3

Court views specific, internal financial information to be confidential, but general descriptions of

4

business issues or strategy readily understood in the industry or already revealed in or implied by

5

the Amended Complaint are not confidential.

6

Defendants submitted a binder of the documents at issue with the claimed confidential

7

information highlighted. In issuing this order, the Court assumes without deciding that everything

8

not highlighted is not confidential. The Court’s order solely evaluates the highlighted portions of

9

each page.
Tab 1: Bates -340 and -341 are not confidential. The rest is.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Tab 2: Bates -562 is not confidential. The rest is.

12

Tab 3: Confidential.

13

Tab 4: Confidential.

14

Tab 5: The name of the vendor is confidential, but the rest is not.

15

Tab 6: Bates -855 and the first word on Bates -856 are not confidential, but the rest is.

16

Tab 7: The numbers on Bates -6303 are confidential but the rest of that page is not. The

17

other pages are confidential.

18

Tab 8: The names of the vendors are confidential, but the rest is not.

19

Tab 9: Confidential.

20

Tab 10: Confidential.

21

Tab 11: Confidential.

22

Tab 12: The dollar numbers and percentages are confidential, but the rest is not.

23

Tab 13: Confidential.

24

Tab 14: Confidential.

25

Tab 15: Bates -582 is not confidential, but the rest is.

26

Tab 16: Bates -765: “There” to “Network” is not confidential but the rest is. Bates -766

27

and -767: The key strategies are not confidential, but the 2016 updates are. The rest of the

28

document is confidential.
2

1

Tab 17: Confidential.

2

Tab 18: Confidential.

3

Tab 19: Bates -336 is not confidential. The Court’s ruling on the rest of the document is

4

the same as for tab 6.

5

Tab 20: Not confidential.

6

Tab 21: Confidential.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: January 10, 2019

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3