Martinez v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation, et al.
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lourdes A. Martinez GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 41 Defendant Schlumberger Technology Corporation's Motion for Entry of Confidentiality Agreement. (atc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
SAUL MARTINEZ, on Behalf of Himself
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
No. CIV-16-0945 JCH/LAM
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT (Doc. 41)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Schlumberger Technology
Corporation’s Opposed Motion for Entry of Protective Order and Confidentiality Agreement
(Doc. 41), filed February 6, 2017. Plaintiff filed a response to the motion on February 21, 2017
[Doc. 47], and Defendant filed a reply on March 7, 2017 [Doc. 50]. Having considered the
motion, response, reply, record of this case, and relevant law, the Court FINDS that the motion
shall be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Defendant states that the parties have been unable to agree on the terms of a protective
order and confidentiality agreement, and asks the Court to enter Defendant’s proposed order.
[Doc. 41 at 3]. Defendant contends that Plaintiff has insisted on changes to Defendant’s proposed
protective order that are unsupportable, and Defendant asks the Court to enter the proposed order
as is. See id. at 5-6 (citing proposed order at Doc. 41-2).
In response, Plaintiff states that he objects to Defendant’s proposed protective order
because “it contains provisions that are contrary to the law and will give Defendant sole authority
over whether a document is confidential rather than the Court.” [Doc. 47 at 1]. Plaintiff objects
to: (1) Defendant’s proposal to allow all documents to be filed under seal without prior Court
approval; (2) Defendant’s proposal to limit Plaintiff’s counsel’s ability to question witnesses
concerning documents designated as confidential; and (3) Defendant’s proposal to require third
parties to sign the protective order. Id. at 2. Plaintiff states that, in a case in North Dakota,
“Defendant has designated every document produced in discovery as confidential,” and Plaintiff
contends that “Defendant is now seeking to bring this litigation tactic to New Mexico.” Id. at 3.
Plaintiff further contends that Defendant’s proposed protective order will prevent the public from
having access to court records, and that it would improperly put the burden on Plaintiff to prove
why a document should not be sealed, instead of on Defendant to prove why a document is
confidential. Id. at 4-6.
In reply, Defendant states that good cause supports the entry of the proposed protective
order because Defendant has the right to maintain the confidentiality of its proprietary and
competitively sensitive materials. [Doc. 50 at 1]. Defendant states that the burden of proof is
properly allocated because the proposed protective order provides that only limited categories of
documents may be designated as confidential. Id. at 2-3. Nevertheless, Defendant agrees to add
language to the proposed protective order that, in the event a party objects to designating material
as confidential, the designating party must “specify all reasons why confidentiality should apply to
the Discovery Materials whose designation has been challenged,” and that, if the parties are unable
to reach an agreement as to the designation, the objecting party can move the Court for an order
that the challenged material is not confidential, and “[t]he party that wishes the Discovery Material
to retain the ‘Confidential’ or ‘Highly Confidential’ designation shall bear the burden of proof in
any challenge to such a designation.” Id. at 4 (quoting proposed protective order, Doc. 50-1
at 9-10, ¶ 14).
Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s objection regarding counsel’s ability to
question witnesses about confidential information is without merit because the proposed
protective order states that “[p]ersons may be deposed regarding ‘Confidential Information’ or
‘Highly Confidential” information of which they have knowledge.” Id. at 5 (quoting proposed
protective order, Doc. 50-1 at 7, ¶ 12). Defendant proposes to add language to the protective
order that would exempt deponents who are properly shown confidential information during a
deposition from being required to sign the agreement to be bound to the terms of the protective
order. Id. at 6 (citing proposed protective order, Doc. 50-1 at 3 and 5, ¶¶ 3 and 5). As to other
third parties, Defendant contends that Plaintiff can avoid having couriers sign the agreement by
placing confidential materials in a sealed envelope, and that “[a]ny vendor routinely used by a law
firm should already be under an agreement to preserve the confidentiality of confidential
The Court finds that Defendant’s changes to the proposed protective order, as set forth in
Document 50-1 attached to Defendant’s reply brief, are acceptable, and, with some additional edits
by the Court, sufficiently address Plaintiff’s objections. While Plaintiff objects that the proposed
protective order allows a party to designate a document as confidential absent prior Court approval
(see Doc. 41 at 2), parties routinely enter into confidentiality agreements that allow the parties to
designate documents as confidential, and to file a motion with the Court if a party disagrees with a
designation and the parties are unable to come to an agreement on their own.
contention that Defendant has designated every document as confidential in another case is
irrelevant at this time since there is no current dispute regarding this alleged behavior before the
Court. Importantly, the protective order provides that a party may only designate materials as
confidential if they “include trade secrets, confidential research, development, or commercial
information, or confidential information related to business operations, finances, employees, or
medical condition as described in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G).” [Doc. 50-1
at 3, ¶¶ 2.1 and 2.2]. If Defendant designates as confidential material that does not contain the
above-listed information, and the parties are unable to agree on a solution, then Plaintiff may bring
a motion to the Court raising that issue at that time, and the protective order provides that the
burden would be on the designating party to prove that the information is confidential. See id.
at 9-10, ¶ 14. The Court further finds that Defendant has sufficiently addressed Plaintiff’s
objections regarding depositions by exempting deponents who are properly shown confidential
information during a deposition from being required to sign the agreement. See id. at 3 and 5,
¶¶ 3 and 5. Finally, the Court finds no merit to Plaintiff’s contention that the protective order will
prevent the public from having access to court records because only confidential materials will be
designated as confidential, not the parties’ pleadings or the Court’s orders. In addition, the
Court’s changes to Paragraph 9 of the protective order (as set forth below), address the situation
where the parties need to include confidential information in documents filed on the Court’s
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the proposed protective order submitted at
Document 50-1 attached to Defendant’s reply brief, is acceptable with the following edits by the
1. ¶ 4.e. - add “Subject to Paragraph 12” to the beginning of this paragraph.
2. ¶ 6 - add “subject to Paragraph 12” at the end of this paragraph.
3. ¶ 9 - rewrite entire paragraph to state: “All pleadings that contain ‘Confidential
Information’ or ‘Highly Confidential Information’ shall be filed in the public record in
redacted form, with as few redactions as possible, and an unredacted version shall be
filed under seal. Nothing herein shall prevent a party from utilizing the other party’s
‘Confidential Information’ or ‘Highly Confidential Information’ at the trial of this case
or in any pre-trial proceeding, subject to the right of the Designating/Producing Party to
seek protection of such materials and information from the Court.”
¶ 15 - add “Excluding the Court and persons defined in Paragraphs 4(a) and 6(a)” to
the beginning of this paragraph.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, for the reasons stated above, that Defendant
Schlumberger Technology Corporation’s Opposed Motion for Entry of Protective Order and
Confidentiality Agreement (Doc. 41) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as described
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within ten (10) days of the entry of this Order,
Defendant shall submit the proposed protective order with the above-described amendments to the
Court at firstname.lastname@example.org.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LOURDES A. MARTÍNEZ
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?