Geologic Computer Systems, Inc. v. Weintraub et al

Filing 22

AMENDMENT TO STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GEOLOGIC COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:11-cv-13272-RHC-LJM
Honorable Judge Robert H. Cleland
Magistrate Judge Laurie J. Michelson

v
ARNOLD S. WEINTRAUB, ESQ., and
THE WEINTRAUB GROUP, P.L.C.,
Defendants.

Blaske & Blaske, P.L.C.
Thomas H. Blaske (P26760)
John F. Turck IV (P67670)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
500 South Main Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Phone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Emails: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

MADDIN, HAUSER, WARTELL,
ROTH & HELLER, P.C.
STEVEN M. WOLOCK (P38497)
HARVEY R. HELLER (P27351)
Attorneys for Defendants
28400 Northwestern Highway, Third Floor
Southfield, Michigan 48034
Phone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

AMENDMENT TO STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and upon the stipulation of
the parties set forth below in paragraphs 1 through 5, with good cause having been shown, the
Court hereby orders that the May 3, 2012 Stipulated Protective Order entered in this case is
amended as set forth below:
1.

Defendant Geologic Computer Systems, Inc. (“Geologic”) is currently a plaintiff

in GeoLogic Computer Systems, Inc. v John D. Maclean, et al, Case No. 2:10-cv-13569, a case
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the Maclean
case”), in which the parties agreed to, and the Court entered, a protective order.
1

2.

The protective order entered in the Maclean case categorized certain documents

as “Highly Confidential Material” and provided for more limited disclosure of such documents
than documents marked “Confidential Material” under the May 3, 2012 Protective Order.
3.

On April 13, 2012, the Weintraub defendants in this case served a subpoena on

Brian Rolfe, as counsel for Geologic in the Maclean case seeking, inter alia, all documents
received in discovery by Geologic from the defendants in the Maclean case.
4.

On February 27, 2012, the Weintraub defendants served John Maclean with a

subpoena duces tecum, which sought a limited number of documents related to the product and
to certain sales of the product at issue in both this case and the Maclean case. The Maclean
deposition was adjourned to May 14, 2012.
5.

On April 27, 2012, Kemp Klein objected to the Weintraub defendants’ subpoena

to the extent it sought documents received in discovery by Geologic from the Maclean case
defendants on the grounds that such documents had been produced pursuant to an agreement
between Geologic and the Maclean case defendants to keep the documents confidential in
accordance with the terms of the protective order in the Maclean case.
6.

The Maclean case defendants have indicated that will consent to the release of

such documents if the May 3, 2012 Stipulated Protective Order is amended as follows:
IT IS ORDERED THAT the May 3, 2012 Protective Order is amended to provide that
access to any documents that are marked “Highly Confidential Material” and that are produced
by the Kemp Klein Law Firm in response to the Weintraub subpoena to Brian Rolfe dated April
13, 2012, or otherwise produced by Kemp Klein and/or the defendants in the Maclean case is
restricted to the following authorized persons:
(a)

Attorneys of record (including attorneys designated in court papers as “of
counsel”) in this lawsuit and employees of such attorneys to whom it is
necessary that the material be shown for purposes of this litigation;
2

(b)

Employees of outside vendors acting under the direction of the attorneys
of record and providing translation, interpreting, copy services, or other
document management services, jury research and/or analysis, and/or
exhibit preparation services in connection with this litigation, provided
that such employees of third party vendors shall not be employees of a
party or otherwise working for or on behalf of a party in connection with
that party’s business; and further provided such person executes the
Acknowledgement Regarding Confidential Materials attached to the May
3, 2012 Protective Order prior to the disclosure to him or her of any
Highly Confidential Material.

(c)

Independent persons retained by a party or its attorneys of record in this
action to assist in the preparation of this action for trial (such as
independent technical experts, economists, accountants, expert witnesses
and other consultants, and the necessarily involved employees of such
persons) (collectively referred to as "independent experts"), provided such
person executes the Acknowledgement Regarding Confidential Materials
attached to the May 3, 2012 Protective Order prior to the disclosure to him
or her of any Highly Confidential Material.

(d)

This Court, the Court’s employees, and the jury in this litigation;

(e)

Court reporters transcribing testimony taken in this action, videographers
of such testimony, and notarizing officers;

(f)

Any mediator, facilitator and/or arbitrator selected by the parties or under
applicable court rules; and

(hg

As to any document designated as containing Highly Confidential
Material, the person who generated the material, authored the document,
received the document, or is believed to have been involved in the events
reflected in the document is an authorized person with respect to that
document including in the context of deposition testimony, interrogatories
addressed to that party, or trial preparation.

T IS FURTHER ORDERED that paragraph 11 of the May 3, 2012 Protective Order is
replaced with the following: Any party may challenge at any time the propriety of a designation
of material as Confidential Material, Highly Confidential Material or Attorneys Eyes Only
Confidential. If a receiving party disagrees with a designation given to a particular document by
the party that originally produced it (e.g., the designation given to documents produced to
GeoLogic by any of the defendants in the Maclean case, and subsequently produced by Kemp
3

Klein to the Weintraub defendants pursuant to subpoena), the receiving party shall notify the
“designating party” of the objection(s) in writing. In response, the designating party shall
provide the receiving party with a written statement of the factual grounds for the designation. If
the parties are unable to resolve their dispute informally within 7 days of the written notice by
the receiving party, the receiving party may seek relief from the Court, with the burden on the
designating party to establish the appropriateness of its designation. While such motion is
pending, all disputed material shall be treated according to the designation given by the
designating party unless and until the Court orders otherwise. Before seeking relief from the
court, the parties shall attempt to resolve the dispute in good faith on an informal basis. Nothing
in this Protective Order constitutes a finding or admission that any material designated as
Confidential Material, Highly Confidential Material or Attorney Eyes Only Confidential is in
fact entitled to said designation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any documents that are marked Highly Confidential
shall otherwise be treated in the same manner as Confidential Materials are treated in the May 3,
2012 Protective Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any source code, compiled code, and/or executable
code that is produced by any of the Maclean defendants to Geologic in the Maclean case after
May 7, 2012, shall not be produced to the Weintraub defendants, provided, however, that this
prohibition shall be without prejudice to any effort by the Weintraub defendants to seek to
subpoena such documents directly from the Maclean defendants should they determine such
discovery to be necessary.

Date: 5/11/2012

s/Robert H. Cleland
Honorable Robert H. Cleland
4

I STIPULATE TO THE ENTRY OF THE ORDER
SET FORTH ABOVE:
Blaske & Blaske, P.L.C.

MADDIN, HAUSER, WARTELL,
ROTH & HELLER, P.C.

By: /S/ John F. Turck IV (P67670)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
500 South Main Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Phone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Emails: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

By: /S/ Steven M. Wolock (P38497)
Attorneys for Defendants
28400 Northwestern Highway, Third Floor
Southfield, Michigan 48034
Phone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Dated: May 11, 2012

Dated: May 11, 2012

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GEOLOGIC COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:11-cv-13272-RHC-LJM
Honorable Judge Robert H. Cleland
Magistrate Judge Laurie J. Michelson

v
ARNOLD S. WEINTRAUB, ESQ., and
THE WEINTRAUB GROUP, P.L.C.,
Defendants.

Blaske & Blaske, P.L.C.
Thomas H. Blaske (P26760)
John F. Turck IV (P67670)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
500 South Main Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Phone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Emails: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

MADDIN, HAUSER, WARTELL,
ROTH & HELLER, P.C.
STEVEN M. WOLOCK (P38497)
HARVEY R. HELLER (P27351)
Attorneys for Defendants
28400 Northwestern Highway, Third Floor
Southfield, Michigan 48034
Phone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS
I, __________________, have read and understood the Stipulated Protective Order
entered by the Court in this case on ___________, 2012 and agree to be bound by the provisions
of that Order. I agree to subject myself to the jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of any
proceedings relating to the performance under, compliance with or violation of that Order.
Date: __________________

_____________________________

EXHIBIT A
6