Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company

Filing 149

ORDER re 87 Discovery Letter BriefJoint Report #1 filed by Hewlett-Packard Company. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 12/18/2013. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2013)

Download PDF
1 *E-Filed: December 18, 2013* 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 For the Northern District of California NOT FOR CITATION 8 United States District Court 7 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 ERIC BENEDICT, ET AL., Plaintiffs, 12 v. No. C13-00119 LHK (HRL) ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE JOINT REPORT #1 13 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, [Re: Docket No. 87] 14 15 Defendant. ____________________________________/ 16 Eric Benedict sues Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) over its alleged failure to pay him for 17 overtime worked. During discovery, HP learned that Benedict made and kept a mirror image of his 18 employer-issued laptop before returning it upon resigning. This laptop reportedly was an important 19 tool used by plaintiff in performing his job duties, and it contained reams of information about HP’s 20 business, some of it confidential. Apparently intermingled with the HP information was personal 21 information of the plaintiff. Benedict now explains that he was only interested in saving the 22 personal information and did not intend to, nor did he, misuse any of the HP data. HP remains 23 unpersuaded by plaintiff’s protests of innocence and is suspicious that he was up to no good. HP 24 wants the mirror image back. However, the issues surrounding that effort are not the subject of the 25 current discovery dispute. 26 The dispute here is whether plaintiff may, under the Protective Order, designate the identity 27 of his current employer as either “Highly Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only”(“AEO”) or (his 28 compromise proposal) “Confidential” but with the added caveat that no HP employee may contact 1 that employer. Plaintiff insists he needs this protection for fear that HP managers, in retaliation for 2 his daring to sue over overtime, will contact his current employer and bad mouth him for what they 3 would characterize as his dishonesty. HP retorts that plaintiff’s concern is nonsense, that the name 4 of his current employer does not merit protection under the Protective Order, and that either the 5 AEO or Confidential designation would hamstring its legitimate discovery inquiries. 6 The dispute is driven by distrust. Benedict does not trust HP to not go behind his back and 7 harm his relationship with his current employer. HP does not trust anything plaintiff now says about 8 innocent intentions and no-harm-done because he made and took that mirror image of all his work. 9 At this point, each side’s fears are speculative. This court will not credit speculation in deciding this For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 dispute. It would be most unusual in a case such as this to grant protective order protection to the 11 name of a current employer of a plaintiff, and on the showing here the court declines to do so. 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 18, 2013 HOWARD R. LLOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 C13-00119 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 2 Adam T. Klein 3 Caryn F Horner chorner@sidley.com, kmelendy@sidley.com, sfdocket@sidley.com, tscuffil@sidley.com atk@outtengolden.com, aplatt@outtengolden.com, kar@outtengolden.com 4 Daniel M. Hutchinson dhutchinson@lchb.com David Ryan Carpenter drcarpenter@sidley.com 5 6 Jahan C. Sagafi jsagafi@outtengolden.com Jennifer Lin Liu jliu@outtengolden.com 7 8 9 Juno E. Turner jturner@outtengolden.com, jlyons@outtengolden.com, mhendriksen@outtengolden.com For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Kelly M. Dermody kdermody@lchb.com 11 Marc Pilotin 12 Mark E. Haddad 13 Max Fischer 14 Wendy M. Lazerson 15 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. mpilotin@lchb.com, ajones@lchb.com mhaddad@sidley.com, grodriguez@Sidley.com, LAlegria@Sidley.com mfischer@sidley.com, dgiusti@sidley.com wlazerson@sidley.com, kmelendy@sidley.com, SFLitScan@Sidley.com 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?