Phelps v. Daimler Trucks North America

Filing 56

ORDER AND REASONS denying 33 , 37 Motions for Protective Order as set forth in document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North on 7/15/2014. (Reference: All cases)(lag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MEGAN D. PHELPS, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NUMBER: 13-6685
c/w 13-6686

DAIMLER TRUCKS NORTH
AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

SECTION: “N” (5)

ORDER AND REASONS
For the reasons stated by the Court during the course of the hearing that was held
on July 9, 2014, Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s competing motions for entry of a protective
order (rec. docs. 33, 37) are denied. On or before July 18, 2014, the parties are to jointly
submit a proposed protective order that is to be patterned after the Court’s model
protective order, copies of which were provided to counsel at the conclusion of the hearing.
Paragraph 5(b) of the Court’s model protective order, entitled “Limited Third-Party
Disclosures,” allows for sharing of protected information with a limited number of
categories of persons and/or entities. To that list, Plaintiffs seek to add the following
category of persons:
any attorney, expert, or consultant representing a party in
other present or future cases in any court in the United States

against Daimler Trucks, NA alleging claims arising out of the
same or similar set of facts, transactions, or occurrences that
are asserted in the complaint filed in this case (i.e., claims of
injury or death alleged to have been caused by the defects in
the tractor related to fuel system integrity and emergency
egress).
(Rec. doc. 55, at 3).
In brief and at oral argument, Plaintiffs’ counsel described this proposed language as
permitting them to share documents deemed “confidential” by Defendant with “similarly
situated plaintiffs” and their select representatives, such as experts and counsel. (Rec. doc.
33-2). Counsel further suggested that this Court might exercise jurisdiction over these farflung and as-yet-unknown persons1 by virtue of another proposed provision in the
protective order which would require these persons to “submit” to the jurisdiction of this
Court.
After reviewing the parties’ briefs and citation to authorities therein, including the
supplemental material submitted by Plaintiffs in support of their argument, the Court is
unconvinced that the proffered provision is appropriate or necessary in this case and
further declines the invitation to exercise jurisdiction (purportedly, at least) over an

Notably, the proposed language would even allow sharing with litigants in “future cases.” (Rec. doc. 55, at
3).
1

unknown number of litigants in cases filed and un-filed throughout the United States ad
infinitum.
The Fifth Circuit has held that a protective order that restricts the dissemination and
use of protected materials to the litigation in which those materials are produced is not
“unduly constricting.” Scott v. Monsanto, 868 F. 2d 786, 792 (5th Cir. 1989). Accordingly,
this Court will not approve the language proffered by Plaintiffs (or any similar language)
that would permit sharing of documents subject to the protective order ultimately issued in
this case with “similarly situated” claimants or their representatives.
Hello This is a Test
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 15th day of

July

, 2014.

MICHAEL B. NORTH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE