Baronius Press, Ltd. v. Saint Benedict Press, LLC
Filing
80
PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 10/24/2018. (jaw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CASE NO. 3:16-cv-00695-GCM
BARONIUS PRESS, LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAINT BENEDICT PRESS LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CONSENT PROTECTIVE ORDER
REGARDING DEPOSITION TESTIMONY
OF BRENT KLASKE
)
IT IS HEREBY stipulated and agreed, by and between Plaintiff Baronius Press, Ltd.,
Defendant Saint Benedict Press LLC, and Mr. Brent Klaske, a non-party, that deposition testimony
by Mr. Klaske in this matter is subject to this consent protective order. Pursuant to FED. R.
CIV. P. 26(c), the Court determines there is good cause to enter this consent protective order.
THEREFORE, WITH THE
CONSENT OF
THE
PARTIES,
IT IS ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that upon proper service of a valid subpoena to Mr. Klaske, he is
ordered to give deposition testimony in this matter subject to the following terms and conditions:
1.
The Defendant agrees that Mr. Klaske’s deposition testimony in this matter does
not violate the terms of any non-disclosure or confidentially agreement that the Defendant may
have with Mr. Klaske. The Defendant agrees it will not pursue any claims against Mr. Klaske
pertaining to the disclosure of confidential information which arise from his deposition testimony
in this matter.
2.
Except as provided in paragraph 1, the Defendant reserves all rights against Mr.
Klaske pertaining to disclosure of confidential information made outside of his deposition
testimony in this matter. Mr. Klaske reserves all defenses to such claims.
{C0236998.1}
3.
The Plaintiff, the Defendant, and Mr. Klaske agree that questioning of Mr. Klaske
during his deposition will be limited to the approved topics identified in the list attached hereto
as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference. The parties shall not inquire into any topics which
are listed as disapproved under Exhibit A. The Plaintiff, the Defendant, and Mr. Klaske have
each reviewed Exhibit A and agree that the approved topics listed therein do not require Mr.
Klaske to testify regarding confidential information. Mr. Klaske may refuse to answer any question
which deviates from the topics listed in Exhibit A. In the event that questioning by the Plaintiff
deviates from the topics in Exhibit A, either the Defendant or Mr. Klaske may terminate the
deposition and the deposition shall only resume upon order of the Court.
4.
The Plaintiff and the Defendant agree that only the Plaintiff’s counsel (and not
Paul Kejik or any other representative of the Plaintiff or any third person), will be present at the
deposition of Mr. Klaske, either personally or remotely on behalf of the Plaintiff. The deposition
transcript and exhibits shall be marked as “Confidential” and, as to Plaintiff, “For Attorneys’ Eyes
Only.” The Defendant’s representative may be present at the deposition and will be permitted to
review the deposition transcript and exhibits.
5.
The ultimate disposition of protected materials shall be subject to a final order
from the Court upon completion of the litigation.
[This space intentionally left blank. Signatures appear on page 3 of 3.]
{C0236998.1}
Page 2 of 3
Signed: October 24, 2018
CONSENTED TO:
/s/ Mark W. Ishman
Mark W. Ishman
N.C. Bar No. 27908
Ishman Law Firm, P.C.
9660 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 138-350
Raleigh, NC 27615
Counsel for the Plaintiff
/s/ Kristin G. Garris
Kristin G. Garris
N.C. State Bar No. 38767
Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse &
Hirschtritt LLP
900 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Counsel for the Plaintiff
/s/ Luke J. Farley, Sr.
Luke J. Farley, Sr.
N.C. Bar No. 41229
Conner Gwyn Schenck PLLC
3141 John Humphries Wynd
Raleigh, NC 27612
Counsel for Brent Klaske
/s/ Jonathan E. Buchan
Jonathan E. Buchan
N.C. Bar No. 8205
Essex Richards, P.A.
1701 South Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28203
Counsel for the Defendant
{C0236998.1}
Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT A
APPROVED AND DISAPPROVED TOPICS
FOR DEPOSITION OF MR. BRENT KLASKE
APPROVED TOPICS:
1. Mr. Klaske’s employment history prior to working for the Defendant, including his
employment with TAN Books during its Ch. 11 bankruptcy proceeding. The
Plaintiff may ask freely questions about this topic.
2. Mr. Klaske’s employment with the Defendant.
3. St. Benedict Press LLC:
a. Managerial structure of the Defendant during the time Mr. Klaske was
employed by the Defendant, including who was in charge of the company
and who made managerial decisions; and
b. Companies related to the Defendant.
4. The book titled Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
a. All matters related to the publication rights
b. Publication history
c. Preparation of derivative works, corrections, etc.
d. Sales history
e. Sales practice outside the United States
f. Accounting.
5. Whether Mr. Klaske has knowledge whether Mr. Patrick Madrid ever wrote the
preface to Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma for the Defendant, and if so, when
did the Defendant receive the preface; and whether there was any
correspondence between the Defendant and Patrick Madrid regarding the
preface. No other questions regarding Mr. Madrid other than these two topics are
allowed.
6. Any documents provided in this litigation by either the Plaintiff or the Defendant
that relate directly to the above topics, subject to compliance with the Consent
Protective Order in this case, with particular attention to the “confidentiality” and
“attorneys eyes only” provisions of that Order.
{C0236977.1}
Page 1 of 2
DISAPPROVED TOPICS:
The parties are expressly prohibited from questioning Mr. Klaske on any of the
following topics:
1.
2.
Copyright - royalty rates, amounts paid for copyright;
3.
Advertising costs;
4.
Employees’ salaries;
5.
Taxes paid;
6.
Research channels;
7.
Names, contact details, prices etc. of wholesale customers; and
8.
{C0236977.1}
Contractors, their rates, details etc., including specifically Mr. Patrick
Madrid (other than as provided above in paragraph 5 of the approved
topics);
Names, contact details, prices etc. of retail customers.
Page 2 of 2
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?