Bogner et al v. Precision Broadband Installations Inc

Filing 22

Discovery Dispute Conference Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel on 1/7/13. (sh1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
United States ex rel. Kevin
McDonough,

:
:

Civil Action 2:08-cv-0114

:

Judge Marbley

:

Magistrate Judge Abel

Plaintiff
v.
Symphony Diagnostic Services and
Symphony Diagnostic Services No. 1,
d/b/a Mobilex U.S.A.,

:
:

Defendants
:

Discovery Dispute Conference Order
On January 7, 2013, counsel for the parties participated in a telephone discovery
dispute conference with the Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff McDonough earns his living as a consultant to portable x-ray providers.
He gives them advice about marketing systems, marketing strategy, business valuation,
certification, licensing, entering new markets, and the like. Defendants’ Requests for
Production Nos. 24 (documents reflecting pricing information/procedures for mobile xrays) and 25 and Interrogatory No. 10 (clients McDonough has consulted with about
pricing of moblile x-ray services) seek documents/information about pricing of mobile xray services. Paragraph 16 of the Complaint alleges that McDonough bases the allegations
in the complaint about pricing on his direct knowledge as a consultant and as an employee
of Mobilex. I agree that documents and knowledge he has about pricing are relevant
without expressing an opinion on whether it would be admissible evidence at trial.

Plaintiff argues that McDonough is bound by contract not to reveal the identity of
his clients and not to disclose their confidential business information. While his clients’
confidential business information that he and they have developed and followed procedures to safeguard deserves protection, that information is not necessarily protected from
discovery in this lawsuit. The information may be protected by an attorneys’-eyes-only
provision, by redaction of the clients’ name and irrelevant confidential information, by
assigning a discrete identifier to each client, or by the like.
To test if there are responsive documents/information and, if so, to determine how
it can be produced giving the most protection to the confidentiality of the information,
plaintiff is ORDERED to make a supplemental response to Document Requests Nos. 24
and 25 and Interrogatory No. 10. If the names of clients are included in documents or
required to respond to Interrogatory No. 10, they may be redacted and a unique identifier
substituted for the name of the client.
Counsel will email me their proposed schedule for plaintiff to make the supplemental discovery responses, defendants’ counsel to review them, counsel to consult
about any continuing disputes in an attempt to resolve them, and for them to submit the
dispute to me for resolution.

s/Mark R. Abel
United States Magistrate Judge

2