Lopez et al v. Aqui Es Texcoco, Inc. et al
Filing
17
ORDER Regarding Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 1/11/2013.(knb)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
EDUARDO MALDONADO LOPEZ,
et al.,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
15
AQUI ES TEXCOCO, et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
18
AQUI ES TEXCOCO, et al.,
19
Plaintiffs,
20
v.
21
22
EDUARDO MALDONADO LOPEZ,
et al.,
Defendants.
23
24
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 12-1215-BEN(WVG)
ORDER REGARDING
PROTECTIVE ORDER
Civil No. 12-2113-BEN(WVG)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
(DOC. NO. 14)
25
26
On January 9, 2013, the Court held a Status Conference in the
27
above-entitled
cases.
Douglas
Clearly
28
Plaintiffs (“Lopez”) in case no. 12-1215 (wage and hour lawsuit).
1
appeared
on
behalf
of
12cv2113
1
Reed Smith appeared on behalf of Defendants on case no. 12-1215 and
2
Plaintiffs in case no. 12-2113 (“Aqui”). Harry McGahey appeared on
3
behalf of Defendants (“Lopez”) in case no. 12-2113 (trade libel
4
lawsuit).
5
At the Status Conference, the Court discussed with counsel
6
the need for, and the propriety of, a protective order for the
7
production of Aqui’s financial information in its initial disclo-
8
sures.
9
Case no. 12-1215 involves Plaintiffs Lopez’ and Alejandro
10
Lopez Ferreira’s (“Ferreira”) allegations that they worked for Aqui,
11
a restaurant, and inter alia, were not properly paid for the hours
12
that they worked, were not afforded meal and rest periods, were not
13
paid their wages upon their discharge, and that Aqui failed to
14
properly provide them with itemized pay statements. One of Aqui’s
15
affirmative defenses to Lopez’ and Ferreira’s claims is that the
16
amount alleged to be owed is offset by amounts that Lopez and
17
Ferreira owe Aqui in Aqui’s trade libel lawsuit. On July 25, 2012,
18
the Court ordered the parties to provide their initial disclosures
19
to each other by September 13, 2012. Thereafter, on October 26,
20
2012, the Court held a Case Management Conference, the result of
21
which, inter alia, was that Aqui was ordered to disclose its damages
22
estimate to Lopez and Ferreira on or before November 9, 2012.
23
In the wage and hour lawsuit, Aqui did not disclose its
24
damages estimate as ordered at the October 26, 2012 Case Management
25
Conference, nor did it object to the disclosure of the estimate.
26
Aqui’s counsel argued that while it did not object to production of
27
its financial information, the financial information is protected by
28
its financial privacy rights and is Aqui’s trade secret.
2
12cv2113
1
Case no. 12-2113 involves Aqui’s allegations that Lopez and
2
Ferreira (and Sandra Castillo) have committed trade libel and have
3
misappropriated Aqui’s name and trade secrets by opening a competing
4
restaurant with a same or similar name that serves the same or
5
similar food. On December 14, 2012, the Court ordered the parties to
6
provide their initial disclosures to each other by January 23, 2013.
7
Lopez’ counsel in case no. 12-1215 argued that since Aqui did
8
not object to producing its financial information (stating that such
9
information is protected from disclosure by Aqui’s financial privacy
10
rights and that such information is Aqui’s trade secret) and did not
11
produce
12
objections have been waived. Therefore, Aqui should produce its
13
financial information to Lopez, without restriction. See Burlington
14
Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. District Court, 408 F.3d 1142,
15
1147-1148 (9th Cir. 2005).
a
privilege
log
for
the
financial
information,
those
16
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that in a party’s
17
initial disclosure, a party must provide to all other parties: “a
18
computation of each category of damages claimed by the disclosing
19
party - who must make available for inspection and copying as under
20
Rule
21
privileged or protected from disclosure, on which each computation
22
is based...”
34
the
documents
or
other
evidentiary
material,
23
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) states in pertinent part:
24
unless
The Court may, for good cause, issue an order to
protect a party... from annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one
or more of the following...
(B) specifying terms, including time and place for the
disclosure or discovery;..
(G) requiring that a trade secret or... commercial
information not be revealed or be revealed only in a
specified way.
25
26
27
28
3
12cv2113
1
Here, in case no. 12-1215 (wage and hour lawsuit), Aqui did
2
not comply with Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). Instead, it provided a
3
general statement regarding the damages it claims to have suffered.
4
A general statement regarding alleged damages is insufficient under
5
Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). Therefore, Aqui shall provide to all other
6
counsel in both cases detailed financial information that supports
7
its claim for damages.
8
Despite Aqui’s blatant violation of 26(a)(1)(A)(iii), and
9
this Court’s Order of October 26, 2012, it is well recognized that
10
federal judges have fairly wide latitude to manage discovery to
11
ensure that litigation efficiently moves forward. California ex.
12
rel. Cal. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control v. Campbell, 138 F.3d
13
772, 779 (9th Cir. 1988), Jardin v. DATAllegro, 2011 WL 3299395 at
14
*5 (S.D. Cal. 2011). Also, despite Aqui’s violation, the Court must
15
not blindly and reflexively simply order all potentially sensitive
16
financial information to be disclosed to Aqui’s competitors, without
17
considering options to mitigate the damage that may result from
18
unrestricted disclosures of Aqui’s financial information.
19
Accordingly, Aqui shall not be compelled to produce its
20
financial information without restriction. Even though Aqui failed
21
to object to producing its financial information without restric-
22
tion, the financial information is still protected from disclosure
23
by Aqui’s financial privacy rights and is Aqui’s trade secret.
24
Further, at the January 9, 2013 Status Conference, Aqui’s counsel
25
noted that both case no. 12-1215 and case no. 12-2113 involve the
26
same employees (Lopez and Ferreira), same or similar restaurant
27
28
4
12cv2113
1
names (Aqui Es Texcoco and Aqui Esta Texcoco)1/ the same type of food
2
being sold in the same limited geographic area. The Court finds
3
these
4
information should be produced pursuant to a protective order.
factors
to
be
compelling
reasons
why
Aqui’s
financial
5
Here, the Court simply rules that Aqui’s general statement
6
regarding its damages is insufficient under Rule 26 (a)(1)(A)(iii),
7
and fashions a remedy for the insufficiency. The Court finds that a
8
protective order (to be drafted by the parties) will meet the needs
9
of all parties in these actions.
The protective order may provide
10
that certain to-be-produced documents may be designated as for
11
“Attorney’s Eyes Only.” Rule 26(c)(1)(B),(G). The protective order
12
shall include the following language:
13
No document shall be filed under seal unless counsel
14
secures
15
document under seal. An application to file a document
16
under seal shall be served on opposing counsel, and on
17
the person or entity that has custody and control of
18
the document, if different from opposing counsel. If
19
opposing counsel, or the person or entity who has
20
custody and control of the document, wishes to oppose
21
the application, he/she must contact the chambers of
22
the judge who will rule on the application, to notify
23
the judge’s staff that an opposition to the applica-
24
tion will be filed.
25
Lopez’ counsel in case no. 12-1215 objects to a provision in
26
the protective order that would allow Aqui to designate some to-be-
a
court
order
allowing
the
filing
of
a
27
28
1/
Defendants in the trade libel lawsuit represent that they no longer use
the name “Aqui Esta Texcoco.”
5
12cv2113
1
produced documents as for “Attorney’s Eyes Only.” Specifically,
2
Lopez’ counsel believes that since he will not be able to show those
3
to-be-produced documents to his clients, he will be unable to
4
properly advise them regarding Aqui’s financial status and alleged
5
damages.
6
However,
the
there
is
documents
nothing
stopping
designated
Lopez’
“Attorney’s
counsel
Eyes
from
7
reviewing
Only,”
by
8
himself, and/or from seeking assistance from financial professionals
9
to interpret the data contained in the documents, and formulating
10
opinions about what the documents state, so as to properly advise
11
his clients. Furthermore, as Aqui’s counsel suggested, counsel for
12
Lopez and Ferreira may discuss the financial information in general
13
terms. While this may have certain limitations, it is an avenue that
14
counsel should explore and include within the protective order. In
15
addition, the Court is not foreclosing counsel from seeking relief
16
from the Court to permit full or enhanced disclosure of Aqui’s
17
financial information to Lopez and Ferreira. Therefore, Lopez’
18
counsel’s objection in this regard is overruled.
19
As a result, in case no. 12-2113, Defendants’ Motion for
20
Protective Order (Doc. No. 14) is GRANTED. The protective order
21
shall apply in case no. 12-1215.
22
On or before January 14, 2013, counsel for Aqui shall provide
23
to all other counsel a protective order that provides that any party
24
may designate certain documents as for “Attorney’s Eyes Only”.
25
26
27
28
6
12cv2113
1
2
On or before January 21, 2013 counsel for all other parties
shall approve the protective order as to form.
3
On or before January 22, 2013, counsel for Aqui shall
4
produce to all other counsel the documents that evidence Aqui’s
5
claimed damages.
6
7
DATED:
January 11, 2013
8
9
Hon. William V. Gallo
U.S. Magistrate Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
12cv2113
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?