Rich v. Shrader et al

Filing 94

ORDER Determining Discovery Dispute as to 92 Motion for Discovery. The Court denies Plaintiffss request to de-designate the documents Bates-stampedBAH RICH-000089 and BAH RICH-000091 through 000101. These documents shall remain designated as confidential. The Court denies Plaintiff's request to modify the Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal on 4/29/13. (cge)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FOSTER RICH,

Civil
No.

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.
RALPH W. SHRADER, et al.,
Defendant.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

09-CV-0652-AJB (BGS)

ORDER DETERMINING
DISCOVERY DISPUTE

On April 8, 2013, counsel for all parties contacted the Court regarding a
discovery dispute concerning documents designated as confidential pursuant to the
Stipulated Protective Order (“Protective Order”) entered by the Court on February 1,
2013. (Doc. No. 89.)

In this dispute, Plaintiff seeks to challenge Defendants’

designation of two documents as confidential, and, if the documents remain
confidential, requests that this Court modify the Protective Order’s procedure for
sharing confidential documents with potential lay witnesses. On April 17, 2013, the
parties submitted a joint motion requesting the Court to settle the discovery dispute and
lodged the disputed documents with the Court. (Doc. No. 92.) After reviewing the
parties’ motion, the Court finds that there is no need for a hearing, and for the reasons
below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s requests to remove the confidential designation
from the documents and to modify the protective order.

28

1

09cv0652-AJB

1

Introduction

2

In the instant discovery dispute, Plaintiff seeks to both challenge Defendants’

3

designation of the confidentiality of two documents and modify the Protective Order’s

4

procedure for sharing confidential documents with potential witnesses. Plaintiff and

5

Defendants jointly submitted the proposed protective order to the Court on January 31,

6

2013, after they had “met and conferred and reached an agreement on the terms.” (Doc.

7

No. 87.) The proposed order was adopted with minor modifications and entered by the

8

Court. (Doc. No. 89.) Plaintiff now challenges Defendants’ confidential designation

9

of two document as allowed by Paragraph 7 of the Protective Order. (Id. at 3-4.) If the

10

Court determines the documents should remain confidential, Plaintiff then requests that

11

this Court modify the Protective Order as allowed under Paragraph 25. (Id. at 10.)

12

Confidentiality Designation

13

The Court will not remove Defendants’ confidentiality designation of the

14

documents Bates-stamped BAH RICH-000089 and BAH RICH-000091 through

15

000101. Under the Protective Order, parties may designate a document as confidential

16

when the document contains “(i) personal, proprietary, or financial information that is

17

confidential; (ii) trade secret information; (iii) business confidential information or

18

competitively sensitive information; or (iv) other information the Disclosure of which

19

would, in the good faith judgement of the party designating the material as confidential,

20

be detrimental to the conduct of that party’s business, the business of any of that party’s

21

customers or clients, or the party’s economic interests.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff claims that

22

nothing in the two documents, if disclosed, could affect Defendants’ business as the

23

document contains no algorithms or formulae. (Doc. No. 92 at 1.) Plaintiff refers to

24

the documents as generic, a summary of the interviews of fifteen co-workers with

25

passing reference to old projects and broad-based and non-specific ways for improving

26

Mr. Rich’s performance. (Id.)

27

After reviewing the documents, the Court finds that the documents contain

28

confidential information as defined by the Protective Order and will not remove
2

09cv0652-AJB

1

Defendant’s designation. Both the performance evaluation and the ten-page appraisal

2

contain strategies Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. (“BAH”) utilizes to improve its

3

employees’ performance and experience. This information, if disseminated, could be

4

used to piece together portions of BAH’s proprietary review system and employee

5

development system, which could then be used by competitors to the detriment of BAH

6

in the future. While there is not likely to be anyone who will take an interest in Mr.

7

Rich’s performance, there may be those who are interested to find out what projects a

8

BAH employee undertakes, what co-workers an employee is told to interact with, what

9

committees exist within BAH, and how BAH passes on its institutional knowledge to

10

the next generation. Therefore, the documents contain proprietary information and

11

business confidential information or competitively sensitive information as defined

12

under categories (i) and (iii) of Paragraph 3 of the Protective Order.1

13

Further, under category (iv), Defendants do not have to demonstrate that there

14

will be harm before marking a document confidential; they only must make a good faith

15

judgment that Disclosure would be detrimental. Plaintiff suggests that the documents

16

would not be harmful, and while Plaintiff may believe that in good faith, Plaintiff’s

17

good faith belief is not sufficient to overcome Defendants’ good faith designation.

18

There is no evidence to suggest Defendants acted without good faith.

19

Additionally, Plaintiff has not offered any evidence or made any argument that

20

suggests Defendant designated the documents as confidential in order to prevent

21

Plaintiff from using the documents for the purposes of litigation. Such an argument

22

would nevertheless fail, however, as Plaintiff’s only stated purpose for the documents

23

is to show them to potential witnesses, a use the Protective Order contemplates and

24

allows. Accordingly, the Court agrees with Defendants that the designation of these

25

documents as confidential is proper, and therefore denies Plaintiff’s request to de-

26
27
1

28

The Court finds no need, at this time, to determine whether the information contains
trade secrets under category (ii).
3

09cv0652-AJB

1

designate the documents as confidential.

2

Protective Order Procedure

3

The Court does not find good cause to modify the Protective Order to allow

4

Plaintiff to show confidential documents to potential witnesses without first providing

5

the witnesses with a copy of the Protective Order and having Plaintiff’s counsel explain

6

to the potential witnesses the obligations of the Protective Order. The Protective Order

7

allows the Court to modify the terms and conditions of the Order for good cause, in the

8

interest of justice, or on its own order. (Doc. No. 89 at 10.) Plaintiff claims that the

9

Protective Order’s requirements for sharing confidential documents with potential

10

witnesses is “of no use unless the third party is a lawyer” because the Protective Order

11

consists of legalese. (Doc. 92 at 2.) Plaintiff, however, appears to confuse the

12

procedure for disclosing documents to expert witnesses with the procedure for

13

disclosing documents to potential lay witnesses.

14

The Protective Order procedure Plaintiff challenges is the same procedure

15

Plaintiff and Defendant agreed upon and submitted to the Court in their proposed

16

protective order. Plaintiff’s motion demonstrates that Plaintiff now misreads the

17

Protective Order. Plaintiff argues that the Protective Order requires potential witnesses

18

to attest that they have read and understood the Protective Order. (Doc. No. 92 at 2.)

19

This procedure, however, is only for expert witnesses and consultants as defined in

20

Paragraph 8(c) of the Protective Order. (Doc. No. 89 at 4.) Paragraph 9 requires expert

21

witnesses or consultants to sign the written agreement, attached to the Protective Order

22

as Exhibit A, before receiving confidential information. (Id. at 5.)

23

Plaintiff, on the other hand, intends to show the confidential documents to lay

24

witnesses. In the motion, Plaintiff states that he wishes to use the documents to

25

“refresh the recollection of any of the 11 former colleagues who are said to have

26

recommended his retirement” in order to allow him to “informally discover material

27

information about his claims.” (Doc. No. 92 at 2.) Plaintiff’s attempt to gain fact

28

discovery from these witnesses does not demonstrate any intent to designate these
4

09cv0652-AJB

1

potentially witnesses as expert witnesses or consultants. Therefore, the procedure in

2

Paragraph 9 of the Protective Order does not apply to these witnesses.

3

Instead, Plaintiff should follow the procedure for the disclosure of confidential

4

documents to potential lay witnesses. Under Paragraph 8(f) of the Protective Order, an

5

attorney may show trial and deposition witnesses, as well as potential witnesses,

6

documents designated as confidential as long as the attorney furnishes the witnesses

7

with a copy of the Protective Order and explains the obligations of the Order. (Doc.

8

No. 89 at 4-5.) Under Paragraph 10, the attorney must then execute an affirmation for

9

each witness stating that the attorney provided the witness with a copy of the order and

10

explained the witness’s obligations. (Id. at 5-6.) A copy of the affirmation of counsel

11

is attached to the Protective Order as Exhibit B. (Id. at 13.) The procedure Plaintiff

12

must follow with the witnesses, then, is not the procedure Plaintiff outlined in the

13

motion. Plaintiff has not provided any reason why Plaintiff’s counsel would be unable

14

to advise the potential witnesses of their responsibilities under the Protective Order.

15

Plaintiff has not provided any reason why Plaintiff’s counsel cannot be present when

16

Mr. Rich approaches his former colleagues, or why Mr. Rich cannot request that his

17

colleagues meet with his attorney after an initial meeting without the documents. In

18

sum, Plaintiff has not shown good cause why the Protective Order needs to be

19

modified.

20

Even if Plaintiff attempted to designate the potential witnesses as experts or

21

consultants, Plaintiff could still not establish good cause for modifying the Protective

22

Order. Although Plaintiff insists that “the time for Mr. Rich to approach his former

23

colleagues is closing quickly,” Plaintiff has not shown any effort to actually follow the

24

procedure of the Protective Order under either Paragraphs 9 or 10, or to see if the

25

potential witnesses would understand the language of the Protective Order. (Doc. 92

26

at 2.) Additionally, if Plaintiff believes that the Protective Order is full of “legalese”

27

to the point where only attorneys could understand it, then Plaintiff should have written

28

the Proposed Order in simpler terms before it was submitted to the Court. Plaintiff,
5

09cv0652-AJB

1

who certified to this Court that he agreed with the terms of Protective Order, was fully

2

aware that the Protective Order’s procedures called for providing a copy of the

3

Protective Order to experts or consultants and explaining the terms of the Protective

4

Order to lay persons. Without any attempt to follow these procedures, Plaintiff cannot

5

demonstrated good cause and cannot show how circumstances have changed since the

6

Protective Order was originally submitted to justify a modification of the Protective

7

Order.

8
9

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to de-designate the documents Batesstamped BAH RICH-000089 and BAH RICH-000091 through 000101.

These

10

documents shall remain designated as confidential. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s

11

request to modify the Protective Order.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

DATED: April 29, 2013

BERNARD G. SKOMAL
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6

09cv0652-AJB