Securities And Exchange Commission v. Schroeder

Filing 164

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 141 defendant's Motion for Entry of Protective Order. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, v. Plaintiff, No. C07-03798 JW (HRL) ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER [Re: Docket No. 141] *E-FILED 7/7/2009* United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 KENNETH L. SCHROEDER, Defendant. / In this court's April 27, 2009 discovery order, the SEC, Schroeder, and non-parties KLA-Tencor Corporation ("KLA") and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom ("Skadden") were directed to meet-and-confer for the purpose of entering into a protective order governing the treatment of confidential information. They were unable to reach agreement as to certain terms. Before the court is Schroeder's proposed form of order, on the one hand, and the SEC's proposed form of order (agreed to by KLA and Skadden) on the other. Having considered the moving and responding papers, as well as the parties' respective proposals, this court rules as follows: With respect to Paragraph 3, this court will adopt the SEC's proposed language. However, this ruling is without prejudice to Schroeder to seek modification of the protective order with respect to specific discovery he desires for use in other identified litigation. Next, the parties disagree whether KLA and Skadden should be permitted to attend 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 the depositions of witnesses it does not represent. The papers presented indicate that this is primarily a dispute between Schroeder and KLA. This court sees no reason why KLA should be entirely barred from attending depositions where the company's interests might be implicated. Accordingly, the court will adopt the language proposed by the SEC. However, this ruling is without prejudice to Schroeder to seek a protective order precluding KLA from attending a specific deposition. Additionally, KLA is reminded of its prior representation to this court that it would permit Schroeder to obtain discovery without objections as to privilege or work product. Finally, in the event Schroeder challenges a confidentiality designation, the parties disagree whether he should be ordered to establish at the outset that he is not seeking reconsideration of prior court rulings. Inasmuch as this court did not make definitive rulings as to the claimed confidentiality (or not) of specific documents, it finds that defendant's proposed language is appropriate and adequately addresses the SEC's (and KLA's and Skadden's) stated concerns. Accordingly, defendant's proposed language will be adopted. A protective order will be entered separately. SO ORDERED. Dated: July 7, 2009 HOWARD R. LLOYD United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5:07-cv-03798-JW Notice has been electronically mailed to: Alice L. Jensen ajensen@fenwick.com, cprocida@fenwick.com Arlena Victoria Carrozzi arlena.carrozzi@dlapiper.com David Allen Priebe david.priebe@dlapiper.com, margaret.austin@dlapiper.com, stacy.murray@dlapiper.com Elena Ro roe@sec.gov Elliot Remsen Peters epeters@kvn.com, aap@kvn.com, efiling@kvn.com James Elliot Lyons jlyons@skadden.com, btravagl@skadden.com, kvirdone@skadden.com, wacampbe@skadden.com Jeffrey Bruce Coopersmith jeff.coopersmith@dlapiper.com, bradley.meissner@dlapiper.com, evelyn.dacuag@dlapiper.com Jeffrey S. Facter jfacter@shearman.com, rcheatham@shearman.com Jonathan B. Gaskin jgaskin@orrick.com, mticzon@orrick.com Joni L. Ostler jostler@wsgr.com, pbaird@wsgr.com Judith L. Anderson andersonju@sec.gov, alcairoe@sec.gov, johnstonj@sec.gov Lanelle Kay Meidan lanelle.meidan@skadden.com Marc J. Fagel fagelm@sec.gov Mark Philip Fickes fickesm@sec.gov Matthew Eric Sloan Matthew.Sloan@skadden.com, eaviad@skadden.com, jlyons@skadden.com, mtroost@skadden.com, rcho@skadden.com Rebecca Felice Lubens rlubens@orrick.com, jcopoulos@orrick.com Richard Marmaro rmarmaro@skadden.com, kcooley@skadden.com, ljohnsto@skadden.com, rmckaig@skadden.com Shirli Fabbri Weiss shirli.weiss@dlapiper.com Steven Keeley Taylor skt@kvn.com, efiling@kvn.com, nsn@kvn.com Stuart L. Gasner slg@kvn.com, dxc@kvn.com, efiling@kvn.com, jstiles@kvn.com, rjs@kvn.com Susan F. LaMarca lamarcas@sec.gov, alcairoe@sec.gov, johnstonj@sec.gov Thomas R. Green tgreen@morganlewis.com, lbuda@morganlewis.com, mchiu@morganlewis.com Timothy Alan Miller tmiller@skadden.com, elanders@skadden.com, kvirdone@skadden.com, mborden@skadden.com, wacampbe@skadden.com Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?