Khami v. Ortho-McNeil Neurologics, Incorporated et al

Filing 115

ORDER denying 88 Motion for Protective Order - Signed by Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub. (LBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTINE KHAMI,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-CV-11464

vs.
DISTRICT JUDGE DAVID M. LAWSON
ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., KEVIN
GUENO, and REGGIE YOUNG,

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

Defendants.
___________________________/
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
(DOCKET NO. 88)
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Protective Order.
(Docket no. 88). Defendants filed a response. (Docket no. 90). Plaintiff filed a reply. (Docket no.
92). The parties filed a Joint Statement of Resolved and Unresolved Issues. (Docket no. 112). On
April 20, 2011 the district court granted Plaintiff’s motion in part and ordered Defendants and their
representatives to refrain from contacting Plaintiff’s current employer about the Plaintiff until a
hearing is held on the motion. (Docket 89). The district court then referred the motion to the
undersigned for hearing and determination. (Docket no. 89). The Court heard oral argument on the
motion on September 9, 2011. This matter is now ready for ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A).
Plaintiff moves for a protective order prohibiting Defendants, including any Johnson &
Johnson divisions, subsidiaries, affiliates or any company within the Johnson & Johnson Family of

1

Companies, including their attorneys, agents, employees, representatives, servants, friends, family
or colleagues, from contacting her current employer by subpoena or otherwise about Plaintiff
without a court order authorizing such contact. In response, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has been
unable or unwilling to provide detailed information pertaining to her current employer’s
compensation, benefits, and bonus package. Since this information is relevant in terms of Plaintiff’s
economic damages, Defendants claim they are left with no other alternative but to subpoena
Plaintiff’s current employer for the information.
Rule 26(c), Fed. R. Civ. P., allows the Court to enter a protective order for good cause to
protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. The party
requesting the protective order bears the burden of showing good cause for it to issue. Brittain v.
Stroh Brewery Co., 136 F.R.D. 408, 412 (M.D. N.C. 1991). The moving party must make “a
particular request and a specific demonstration of facts in support of the request as opposed to
conclusory or speculative statements about the need for a protective order and the harm which would
be suffered without one.” Id. (citing Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 102 n.16 (1981)). In
ruling on a motion for protective order, the Court may order that “any party or person provide or
permit discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(2).
For the reasons set forth on the record at the hearing on this motion, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Protective Order (docket no. 88) is denied. Instead, the Court will order Plaintiff to procure from
her current employer and produce to Defendants written documents and policies describing her
current employer’s total compensation package and bonus plan structure as it pertains to Plaintiff,
including salary, bonus, and benefits, to include car allowance, cell phone allowance, health
insurance, and disability insurance. Defendants will be given time to review Plaintiff’s document

2

production. If Defendants are satisfied with Plaintiff’s production as described in this order, the
parties should submit a stipulation of their agreement that Plaintiff will not testify at trial that her
current employer is financially unstable and in jeopardy of closing its doors, and Defendants will
not contact Plaintiff’s current employer.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Protective Order
(docket no. 88) is DENIED and the parties are ordered to do the following:
A.

On or before October 10, 2011 Plaintiff must obtain from her employer and produce
to Defendants written documents and policies describing her current employer’s total
compensation package and bonus plan structure relative to Plaintiff, including salary,
bonus, and benefits such as car allowance, cell phone allowance, health insurance,
and disability insurance. In addition to this information, Plaintiff must provide
Defendants with a written statement outlining every step taken to ascertain this
information from Plaintiff’s current employer.

B.

If Defendants are satisfied with Plaintiff’s document production as described in this
order, then on or before October 30, 2011, the parties must submit a stipulation of
their agreement that Plaintiff will not testify at trial that her current employer is
financially unstable and in jeopardy of closing its doors, and in return Defendants
will not contact Plaintiff’s current employer.

3

NOTICE TO PARTIES
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the parties have a period of fourteen days from the date of
this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be permissible under
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Dated: September 9, 2011

s/ Mona K. Majzoub
MONA K. MAJZOUB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of this Order was served upon Counsel of Record on this date.

Dated: September 9, 2011

s/ Lisa C. Bartlett
Case Manager

4