Pacific Marine Propellers, Inc. v. Wartsila Defense, Inc. et al

Filing 33

ORDER on Joint Motion for Determination of Form of Protective Order; and Protective Order, as Modified by the Court (ECF No. 31 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 11/13/2017. (knb)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

PACIFIC MARINE PROPELLERS,
INC.,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

Case No.: 17cv555 BEN (NLS)
ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR
DETERMINATION OF FORM OF
PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.

AND

WARTSILA DEFENSE, INC., BRYAN
RUTTER, BOBBY HENINGER,

PROTECTIVE ORDER, AS
MODIFIED BY THE COURT (SEE
SECTIONS 4, 8, & 15)

16

Defendants.

[ECF NO. 31]

17
18
19
20

On November 1, 2017, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Determination of Form

21

of Protective Order. ECF No. 31. Therein, the parties present their differing proposals as

22

to appropriate language for a protective order governing discovery in this case.

23
24
25

In their joint motion, the parties offer arguments regarding the disputed provisions,
which the Court will address in turn.
1. Defendants’ Paragraph 4

26

The first dispute pertains to Defendants’ (proposed) Paragraph 4, which states:

27

“All documents and information produced in this litigation by any party or nonparty,

28

whether produced informally or pursuant to a formal discovery request, shall be used by
1
17cv555 BEN (NLS)

1

the parties solely for the purpose of conducting this litigation.” ECF No. 31 at 2.

2

Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that its Facility Security Officer, James

3

King, “has an independent duty of reporting to the United States of fraud, waste and

4

abuse and any of a myriad of potential security breaches,” and thus cannot be barred by

5

the protective order from sharing discovery documents with the government if he

6

believes the documents demonstrate fraud, waste, or abuse by Defendant Wartsila

7

Defense, Inc. (“Wartsila”). Id. at 4. Plaintiff has not specified the regulations governing

8

Mr. King’s reporting duties or clarified the scope of Mr. King’s reporting duties, such as

9

whether they are limited only to fraud, waste, or abuse occurring in Plaintiff’s facilities.

10

“Rule 26(c), setting forth grounds for protective orders, was enacted as a safeguard

11

for the protection of parties and witnesses in view of the broad discovery rights

12

authorized in Rule 26(b).” United States v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 666 F.2d 364,

13

368-69 (9th Cir. 1982). “Generally, the public can gain access to litigation documents

14

and information produced during discovery unless the party opposing disclosure shows

15

‘good cause’ why a protective order is necessary.” Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v.

16

Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). In order to satisfy the good

17

cause standard, the party seeking the protective order must explain what specific

18

prejudice or harm will result without protection. Id. at 1211. “Rule 26(c) confers broad

19

discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what

20

degree of protection is required . . . [because the] trial court is in the best position to

21

weigh fairly the competing needs and interests of parties affected by discovery.” Seattle

22

Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984).

23

Here, the parties agree that documents likely to be exchanged in this case will

24

include trade secrets, confidential research, and material reflecting technical, cost, price,

25

marketing, and/or other commercially sensitive information. ECF No. 31-1 at 1; 31-2 at

26

1. For competitive reasons, the parties seek to keep this sort of information confidential.

27

Id. Defendants’ additional concern is that Mr. King intends to disclose Wartsila’s

28

documents to the United States government, which Defendants believe has less to do with
2
17cv555 BEN (NLS)

1

his reporting duties, and more with Plaintiff’s intent to create problems for Wartsila.

2

ECF No. 31 at 3. According to Defendants, Mr. King already has made such reports

3

regarding Wartsila to federal agencies, so this represents a real and immediate concern.

4

Id.

5

The Court finds that Defendants have shown good cause to limit the use of

6

discovery to this case. See Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1211 (confirming that district courts have

7

“broad latitude” to enter protective orders where necessary to prevent disclosure of trade

8

secrets, research, and other commercial information). To hold otherwise would risk

9

discouraging compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and cooperation

10

among the parties. And, whether he did so out of legal obligation or to attempt to thwart

11

Plaintiff’s competitor, Wartsila, the fact that Mr. King already has reported Wartsila

12

presents a specific harm justifying protection. That being said, Defendants did not

13

provide legal authority pursuant to which this Court could prevent Mr. King from

14

complying with his legal reporting obligations. The protective order exemplar

15

Defendants referenced for the proposition that other courts have limited discovery to the

16

case at hand, which was entered in The Wharf, Inc. v. District of Columbia, et al.,

17

15cv1198 (CKK) (D.D.C. May 22, 2017), ECF No. 97 at ¶¶ 2-3, in fact contained a carve

18

out that specified that “this restriction will not operate to preclude the District of

19

Columbia from using Discovery Materials for law enforcement purposes or as otherwise

20

required by law, regulation, or other legal obligation imposed upon the District of

21

Columbia.”

22

The Court finds that adding similar language allowing disclosure where required

23

by law strikes the proper balance of protecting confidential information and preventing

24

anti-competitive behavior without impairing Mr. King’s ability to comply with his legal

25

obligations. Additionally, to balance the equities, the Court will require Plaintiff to notify

26

Defendants of any documents obtained via discovery in this case that Mr. King intends to

27

turn over to the United States government.

28

///
3
17cv555 BEN (NLS)

1

2. Defendants’ Paragraph 5

2

Both parties’ proposed protective orders contain provisions allowing the parties to

3

designate documents as “confidential” or “confidential – outside counsel only, 1” but

4

Defendants also seek to allow nonparties to designate documents as confidential and to

5

allow parties to designate documents produced by nonparties as confidential. ECF No.

6

31 at 5. Plaintiff objects that of the more than six subpoenas issues so far, none have

7

solicited documents that the subpoenaed third parties sought to maintain as confidential,

8

and that authority should be limited to the parties to avoid needlessly involving third

9

parties in the action. Id. at 6.

10

Parties frequently incorporate this procedural provision into their protective orders.

11

As Defendants point out, the Northern District of California even includes a similar

12

provision in its model order. See N.D. Cal. Stipulated Protective Order for Standard

13

Litigation at § 2.4, available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/model-protective-orders.

14

Allowing nonparties to designate documents as confidential encourages prompt

15

compliance with subpoenas and furthers the general policy of protecting nonparties in

16

particular from inconvenience, undue cost, and harassment. See Dart Indus. Co. v.

17

Westwood Chem. Co., 649 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1980) (“[w]hile discovery is a

18

valuable right and should not be unnecessarily restricted, the ‘necessary’ restriction may

19

be broader when a nonparty is the target of discovery”); Amini Innovation Corp. v.

20

McFerran Home Furnishings, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 406, 409 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (“‘concern for

21

the unwanted burden thrust upon non-parties is a factor entitled to special weight in

22

evaluating the balance of competing needs’ in a Rule 45 inquiry”) (citation omitted).

23

Allowing parties to designate nonparty documents also encourages cooperation among

24

the parties and, though it may not have been an issue to date, providing a mechanism

25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff’s version includes a designation for “confidential – counsel only,” but given the possibility
that Wartsila may have in-house counsel, the Court will utilize the designation “confidential – outside
counsel only.”
4
17cv555 BEN (NLS)

1

within the protective order for concerns about the confidentiality of nonparty documents

2

likely will obviate the need for court intervention down the road. The Court, therefore,

3

finds it appropriate to include Defendants’ proposed language regarding nonparty

4

designations.

5

3. Defendants’ Paragraph 11

6

Defendants seek to expand the list of individuals and entities who may view

7

“confidential” or “confidential – outside counsel only” documents for purposes of aiding

8

counsel in this case. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff believes Defendants’ additional language is

9

unnecessary as these individuals already are included within the description set forth in

10

Paragraph 9 of the Southern District of California’s Model Protective Order. The Court

11

disagrees. Defendants’ list includes numerous categories of individuals or entities who

12

reasonably may need to view confidential information and who are not covered by the

13

model protective order language. The Court will include Defendants’ proposed language

14

in the protective order.

15

4. Defendants’ Paragraphs 20-22

16

With the addition of these three paragraphs, Defendants seek to implement further

17

safeguards in the event that privileged information is disclosed inadvertently. ECF No.

18

31 at 6-9. Plaintiff believes all of these provisions already are covered by the Federal

19

Rules. Id.

20

While Rule 502(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Rule 26(b)(5) of the

21

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide some protection from a finding that the

22

producing party has waived privilege if it inadvertently produces a privileged document,

23

both come into play only if the producing party realizes its mistake and promptly requests

24

return of the document. Defendants seek to impose an affirmative duty on the receiving

25

party to notify the producing party if it has reason to believe that a privileged document

26

was produced inadvertently. Though attorneys in California admittedly already have an

27
28
5
17cv555 BEN (NLS)

1

ethical duty to provide such notice2, Defendants cannot be faulted for wanting the

2

protective order to have an express reminder of this duty. Particularly where, as here,

3

Defendants are the ones producing voluminous amounts of documents, they run the

4

greater risk of inadvertently producing privileged material.

5

An additional rationale for Defendants’ request is that while Rule 502 provides that

6

an inadvertent production does not operate as a waiver of privilege in the litigation

7

pending before the court (if all of the criteria are satisfied), a court order is required to

8

confirm that the disclosure also is not a waiver in any other state or federal proceedings.

9

Fed. R. Evid. 502(b), (d)3. Thus, in the instant joint motion, Defendants request an order

10

implementing a permissive rule. ECF No. 31 at 7. The Court finds that addition of

11

Defendants’ proposed language is authorized by Rule 502, with the caveat that the order

12

in no way relieves Defendants’ burden to demonstrate that the inadvertently produced

13

documents qualify for the claimed privilege or protection. See Fed. R. Evid. 502

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

2

In Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 42 Cal. 4th 807, 817 (2007), the California Supreme Court
expressly adopted the standard of professional conduct applicable to California attorneys set forth with
regard to inadvertent production in State Comp. Ins. Fund v. WPS, Inc., 70 Cal. App. 4th 644 (1999).
That standard is as follows:
When a lawyer who receives materials that obviously appear to be subject to an attorneyclient privilege or otherwise clearly appear to be confidential and privileged and where it
is reasonably apparent that the materials were provided or made available through
inadvertence, the lawyer receiving such materials should refrain from examining the
materials any more than is essential to ascertain if the materials are privileged, and shall
immediately notify the sender that he or she possesses material that appears to be
privileged. The parties may then proceed to resolve the situation by agreement or may
resort to the court for guidance with the benefit of protective orders and other judicial
intervention as may be justified.
Rico, 42 Cal. 4th at 817. The court deemed this standard consistent with the state’s policies of
encouraging attorneys to thoroughly prepare their cases and investigate both positive and negative
aspects of their cases and ensuring that attorneys would be free from adversaries taking undue advantage
of their efforts. Id. at 818.
3
Rule 502(d) provides that “[a] federal court may order that the privilege or protection is not waived by
disclosure connected with the litigation pending before the court — in which event the disclosure is also
not a waiver in any other federal or state proceeding.” (emphasis added).
6
17cv555 BEN (NLS)

1

Addendum to Advisory Committee Notes.

2
3

In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby enters the version of the protective order
submitted by Defendants, as modified by the Court (see Sections 4, 8, and 15):

4

PROTECTIVE ORDER

5

The Court recognizes that at least some of the documents, electronic data, and

6

information ("Materials") being sought through discovery in the above-captioned action

7

are, for competitive reasons, normally kept confidential by the parties. The parties have

8

agreed to be bound by the terms of this Protective Order ("Order") in this action.

9

The materials to be exchanged throughout the course of the litigation between the

10

parties may contain trade secret or other confidential research, technical, cost, price,

11

marketing or other commercial information, as is contemplated by Federal Rule of Civil

12

Procedure 26(c)(7). The purpose of this Order is to protect the confidentiality of such

13

materials as much as practical during the litigation. THEREFORE:
DEFINITIONS

14
15

1.

or disclosed in any Materials, including documents, portions of documents, answers

16

to interrogatories, responses to requests for admissions, trial testimony, deposition

17

testimony, and transcripts of trial testimony and depositions, including data,

18

summaries, and compilations derived therefrom that is deemed to be

19

“CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY” as set

20
21

The term "Confidential Information" will mean and include information contained

out below.
2.

The term "Materials" will include, but is not be limited to: documents;

22

correspondence; memoranda; bulletins; blueprints; specifications; customer lists or

23

other matter identifying customers or potential customers; price lists or schedules or

24

other matter identifying pricing; minutes; telegrams; letters; statements; cancelled

25

checks; contracts; invoices; drafts; books of account; worksheets; notes of

26

conversations; desk diaries; appointment books; expense accounts; recordings;

27

photographs; motion pictures; compilations from which information can be obtained

28

and translated into reasonably usable form through detection devices; sketches;
7
17cv555 BEN (NLS)

1

drawings; notes (including laboratory notebooks and records); reports; instructions;

2

disclosures; other writings; models and prototypes and other physical objects.

3

3.

The term "Counsel" will mean outside counsel of record and other attorneys,

4

paralegals, secretaries, contract attorneys and other support staff employed in the

5

following law firms: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP; and Law Offices of

6

Andria Catalano Redcrow.

7

Defendant, Wartsila Defense, Inc.
GENERAL RULES

8
9

4.

All documents and information produced in this litigation by any party or nonparty,
whether produced informally or pursuant to a formal discovery request, shall be used

10

by the parties solely for the purpose of conducting this litigation, except to the

11

extent disclosure is required for law enforcement purposes or otherwise is

12

required by law, regulation, or other legal obligation. Any party intending to

13

disclose one or more documents obtained through discovery in this case as a

14

result of a legal obligation to do so must first notify the party that produced the

15
16

“Counsel” also includes in-house attorneys for

document(s) of its intent and specify which document(s) will be disclosed.
5.

Each party or nonparty to this litigation that produces or discloses any materials,

17

answers to interrogatories, responses to requests for admission, trial testimony,

18

deposition testimony, and transcripts of trial testimony and depositions, or

19

information that the producing party believes should be subject to this Protective

20

Order may designate the same as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL - FOR

21

COUNSEL ONLY.” Each party to this litigation that believes Materials or other

22

information produced by a nonparty should be subject to this Order, may designate

23

the same as "CONFIDENTIAL" or "CONFIDENTIAL - FOR COUNSEL ONLY.”

24

a. Designation as "CONFIDENTIAL": Any party or nonparty may designate

25

information as "CONFIDENTIAL" only if, in the good faith belief of such

26

party and its counsel, or of such nonparty, the unrestricted disclosure of such

27
28

information could be potentially prejudicial to the business or operations of
such party or nonparty.

8
17cv555 BEN (NLS)

1

b. Designation as “CONFIDENTIAL – FOR COUNSEL ONLY”: Any party or

2

nonparty may designate information as "CONFIDENTIAL - FOR COUNSEL

3

ONLY" only if, in the good faith belief of such party and its counsel, or of

4

such nonparty, the information is among that considered to be most sensitive

5

by the party or nonparty, including but not limited to trade secret or other

6

confidential research, development, financial or other commercial

7

information.

8

6.

In the event the producing party elects to produce Materials for inspection, no

9

marking need be made by the producing party in advance of the initial inspection.

10

For purposes of the initial inspection, all Materials produced will be considered as
"CONFIDENTIAL - FOR COUNSEL ONLY,” and must be treated as such pursuant

11

to the terms of this Order. Thereafter, upon selection of specified Materials for

12

copying by the inspecting party, the producing party must, within a reasonable time

13

prior to producing those materials to the inspecting party, mark the copies of those

14

Materials that contain Confidential Information with the appropriate confidentiality

15
16

marking.
7.

Whenever a deposition taken on behalf of any party involves a disclosure of

17

Confidential Information of any party (including Confidential Information of a

18

nonparty deponent):

19

a. the deposition or portions of the deposition must be designated as containing

20

Confidential Information subject to the provisions of this Order; such designation

21

must be made on the record whenever possible, but a party (or nonparty

22

deponent) may designate portions of depositions as containing Confidential

23

Information after transcription of the proceedings; and a party (or nonparty

24

deponent) will have until fourteen (14) days after receipt of the deposition

25

transcript to inform the other party or parties to the action of the portions of the

26

transcript to be designated "CONFIDENTIAL" or "CONFIDENTIAL - FOR

27

COUNSEL ONLY'';

28
9
17cv555 BEN (NLS)

1

b. the disclosing party or nonparty will have the right to exclude from attendance at

2

the deposition, during such time as the Confidential Information is to be

3

disclosed, any person other than the deponent, Counsel (including their staff and

4

associates), the court reporter, and the person(s) agreed upon pursuant to

5

paragraph 9 below; and

6

c. the originals of the deposition transcripts and all copies of the deposition must

7

bear the legend “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL - FOR COUNSEL

8

ONLY,” as appropriate, and the original or any copy ultimately presented to a

9

court for filing must not be filed unless it can be accomplished under seal,

10

identified as being subject to this Order, and protected from being opened except
by order of this Court.

11
12

8.

Information

designated

as

"CONFIDENTIAL"

or

receiving party to anyone other than those persons designated within this order and

14

16

Confidential

"CONFIDENTIAL - FOR COUNSEL ONLY" must not be disclosed by the

13

15

All

must be handled in the manner set forth below.
9.

Information designated "CONFIDENTIAL - FOR COUNSEL ONLY" must be
viewed only by counsel (as defined in paragraph 3) of the receiving party, and by

17

independent experts under the conditions set forth in this Paragraph. The right of any

18

independent expert to receive any Confidential Information will be subject to the

19

advance approval of such expert by the producing party or by permission of the

20

Court. The party seeking approval of an independent expert must provide the

21

producing party with the name and curriculum vitae of the proposed independent

22

expert, and an executed copy of the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, in advance

23

of providing any Confidential Information of the producing party to the expert. Any

24

objection by the producing party to an independent expert receiving Confidential

25

Information must be made in writing within fourteen (14) days following receipt of

26

the identification of the proposed expert. Confidential Information may be disclosed

27

to an independent expert if the fourteen (14) day period has passed and no objection

28
10
17cv555 BEN (NLS)

1

has been made. The approval of independent experts must not be unreasonably

2

withheld.

3

10.

Information designated "CONFIDENTIAL" must be viewed only by counsel (as

4

defined in paragraph 3) of the receiving party, by independent experts (pursuant to

5

the terms of paragraph 8), and by the additional individuals listed below, provided

6

each such individual has read this Order in advance of disclosure and has agreed in

7

writing to be bound by its terms:

8

a. Executives who are required to participate in policy decisions with reference to
this action;

9

b. Technical personnel of the parties with whom Counsel for the parties find it

10

necessary to consult, in the discretion of such counsel, in preparation for trial of

11

this action; and

12

c. Stenographic and clerical employees associated with the individuals identified

13
14

above.
11.

15

Confidential Information designated “CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE COUNSEL
ONLY” or “CONFIDENTIAL” may also be viewable by independent copying,

16

scanning, technical support and electronic document processing services retained by

17

Counsel in connection with this action; graphics, translation, or design services

18

retained by Counsel for purposes of preparing demonstrative or other exhibits for

19

deposition, trial, or otherwise in connection with this action; non-technical jury or

20

trial consulting services retained by Counsel in connection with this action and mock

21

jurors, provided, however, that any such individual has read this Order in advance

22

of disclosure and has executed a copy of the form attached hereto as Exhibit A in

23

advance of access.

24

12.

With respect to material designated "CONFIDENTIAL" or "CONFIDENTIAL -

25

FOR COUNSEL ONLY," any person indicated on the face of the document to be its

26

originator, author or a recipient of a copy of the document, may be shown the same.

27
28

13.

All information which has been designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" or
"CONFIDENTIAL -FOR COUNSEL ONLY" by the producing or disclosing party,

11
17cv555 BEN (NLS)

1

and any and all reproductions of that information, must be retained in the custody of

2

the counsel for the receiving party identified in paragraph 3, except that independent

3

experts authorized to view such information under the terms of this Order may retain

4

custody of copies such as are necessary for their participation in this litigation.

5

14.

Before any Materials produced in discovery, answers to interrogatories, responses

6

to requests for admissions, deposition transcripts, or other documents which are

7

designated as Confidential Information are filed with the Court for any purpose, the

8

party seeking to file such Material must seek permission of the Court to file the

9

Material under seal.
Any challenge to the “CONFIDENTIAL” OR “CONFIDENTIAL –

10

15.

OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY” designation of any Confidential Information

11

shall be raised in writing within 30 days of the challenging party’s receipt of

12

the materials at issue. If the dispute is not resolved consensually between the

13

parties within 7 days of receipt of such written notice, the parties shall file a

14

joint motion for determination of discovery dispute, as outlined in this Court’s

15

Chambers Rules, no later than 45 days after the challenging party’s receipt of

16

the designated material in issue. The materials at issue must be treated as

17

Confidential Information, as designated by the designating party, until the Court

18

has ruled on the objection or the matter has been otherwise resolved.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

16.

All Confidential Information must be held in confidence by those inspecting or
receiving it, and must be used only for purposes of this action. Counsel for each
party, and each person receiving Confidential Information must take reasonable
precautions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of such
information. If Confidential Information is disclosed to any person other than a
person authorized by this Order, the party responsible for the unauthorized
disclosure must immediately bring all pertinent facts relating to the unauthorized
disclosure to the attention of the other parties and, without prejudice to any rights

27

and remedies of the other parties, make every effort to prevent further disclosure by

28

the party and by the person(s) receiving the unauthorized disclosure.
12
17cv555 BEN (NLS)

1

17.

No party will be responsible to another party for disclosure of Confidential

2

Information under this Order if the information in question is not labeled or

3

otherwise identified as such in accordance with this Order.

4

18.

If a party, through inadvertence, produces any Confidential Information without

5

labeling or marking or otherwise designating it as such in accordance with this

6

Order, the designating party may give written notice to the receiving party that the

7

document or thing produced is to be designated, as appropriate, “CONFIDENTIAL”

8

or “CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY,” and that the document or

9

thing produced should be treated as such in accordance with that designation under

10

this Order. The receiving party must treat the Materials as confidential, once the
designating party so notifies the receiving party. If the receiving party has disclosed

11

the Materials before receiving the designation, the receiving party must notify the

12

designating party in writing of each such disclosure. Counsel for the parties will

13

agree on a mutually acceptable manner of labeling or marking the inadvertently-

14

produced Materials as "CONFIDENTIAL" or "CONFIDENTIAL - FOR

15
16

COUNSEL ONLY."
19.

Nothing within this order will prejudice the right of any party to object to the

17

production of any discovery material on the grounds that the material is protected as

18

privileged or as attorney work product.

19

20.

The inadvertent production of documents or other information subject to protection

20

by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine or any other legal

21

principle or doctrine protecting such documents or information from discovery shall

22

not constitute a waiver of any privilege or other protection (whether applicable to

23

the document or other information that was inadvertently produced, or any other

24

document or information), provided that the producing party notifies the receiving

25

party in writing of the inadvertent production within fourteen (14) days after the

26

producing party discovers the inadvertent production.

27
28

21.

If a receiving party is in receipt of a document from a producing party that the
receiving party has reason to believe was inadvertently produced and contains

13
17cv555 BEN (NLS)

1

information that the receiving party believes is subject to protection by the attorney-

2

client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other legal principle

3

protecting such document from discovery, then the receiving party shall, in good

4

faith, take reasonable steps to notify the producing party of the production of that

5

document so that the producing party may make a determination of whether such

6

document was inadvertently produced.

7

22.

A receiving party in receipt of inadvertently produced document(s) may move for

8

an order compelling production of some or all of such documents, but the fact that

9

the documents were produced inadvertently shall not be deemed to be a waiver of

10

any privilege or protection, and shall not be a basis for compelling production. In
addition, any motion to compel production of the documents that were inadvertently

11

produced shall not describe the specific contents of the inadvertently produced

12

documents in a way that would diminish or destroy the privilege or protection that

13
14

the producing party claims applies to the document.
23.

15

respect to this litigation and, in the course thereof, relying upon any information

16

designated as Confidential Information, provided that the contents of the information

17
18

Nothing in this Order will bar counsel from rendering advice to their clients with

must not be disclosed.
24.

This Order will be without prejudice to the right of any party to oppose production

19

of any information for lack of relevance or any other ground other than the mere

20

presence of Confidential Information. The existence of this Order must not be used

21

by either party as a basis for discovery that is otherwise improper under the Federal

22

Rules of Civil Procedure.

23

25.

Information if such disclosure is required by law or by order of the Court.

24
25
26
27
28

Nothing within this order will be construed to prevent disclosure of Confidential

26.

Upon final termination of this action, including any and all appeals, counsel for each
party must, upon request of the producing party, return all Confidential Information
to the party that produced the information, including any copies, excerpts, and
summaries of that information, or must destroy same at the option of the receiving

14
17cv555 BEN (NLS)

1

party, and must purge all such information from all machine-readable media on

2

which it resides. Notwithstanding the foregoing, counsel for each party may retain

3

all pleadings, briefs, memoranda, motions, and other documents filed with the Court

4

that refer to or incorporate Confidential Information, and will continue to be bound

5

by this Order with respect to all such retained information. Further, attorney work

6

product materials that contain Confidential Information need not be destroyed, but,

7

if they are not destroyed, the person in possession of the attorney work product will

8

continue to be bound by this Order with respect to all such retained information.

9

27.

information that: (a) the parties agree should not be designated Confidential

10

Information; (b) the parties agree, or the Court rules, is already public knowledge;

11

(c) the parties agree, or the Court rules, has become public knowledge other than as

12

a result of disclosure by the receiving party, its employees, or its agents in violation

13

of this Order; or (d) has come or will come into the receiving party's legitimate

14

knowledge independently of the production by the designating party. Prior

15
16

The restrictions and obligations set forth within this order will not apply to any

knowledge must be established by pre-production documentation.
28.

The restrictions and obligations within this order will not be deemed to prohibit

17

discussions of any Confidential Information with anyone if that person already has

18

or obtains legitimate possession of that information.

19

29.

20
21

this Order.
30.

This Order may be modified by agreement of the parties, subject to approval by the
Court.

22
23

Transmission by facsimile or e-mail is acceptable for all notification purposes within

31.

Filing Under Seal. Nothing shall be filed under seal, and the Court shall not be

24

required to take any action, without separate prior order by the Judge before whom

25

the hearing or proceeding will take place, after application by the affected party with

26

appropriate notice to opposing counsel. The parties shall follow and abide by

27

applicable law, including Civ. L.R.79.2, ECF Administrative Policies and

28
15
17cv555 BEN (NLS)

1

Procedures, Section II.j, and the chambers rules, with respect to filing documents

2

under seal.

3

32.

The Court may modify the terms and conditions of this Order for good cause, or in

4

the interest of justice, for public policy reasons, or on its own order at any time in

5

these proceedings. The parties prefer that the Court provide them with notice of the

6

Court's intent to modify the Order and the content of those modifications, prior to

7

entry of such an order.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 13, 2017

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
17cv555 BEN (NLS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

PACIFIC MARINE PROPELLERS,
INC.
Plaintiff,

13

16

AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY
PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.

14
15

Case No. 3:17-cv-00555-BEN-NLS

WARTSILA DEFENSE, INC.,
BRYAN RUTTER, and BOBBY
HENINGER,

17

Defendants.

18
19
20

I, _____________, declare and say that:

21

1.

22

___________________________________________.

23

2.

24

Propellers, Inc. v. Wartsila Defense, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00555-BEN-NLS, and

25

understand and agree to abide by its terms.

26

3.

27

matter, in accordance with the restrictions in the Protective Order.

28

///

I am employed as __________________ by

I have received and read a copy of the Protective Order entered in Pacific Marine

I agree to keep confidential all Confidential Information provided to me in this

17
17cv555 BEN (NLS)

1

4.

2

jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California with

3

respect to enforcement of the Protective Order.

4

5.

5

contrary to the provisions of the Protective Order may subject me to sanctions for

6

contempt of court.

7

I acknowledge that, by signing this agreement, I am subjecting myself to the

I understand that any disclosure or use of Confidential Information in any manner

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

8
9

Dated:

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
17cv555 BEN (NLS)