Trailblazer Food Products, Inc. v. Silgan White Cap LLC
ORDER and OPINION - Trailblazer's motion 23 to compel is DENIED. Trailblazer's oral motion that Silgan produce the objecting customer's PSR is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 30th day of November, 2017, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (Attachments: (1) Attachment, (2) Attachment, (3) Attachment, (4) Attachment) (peg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
TRAILBLAZER FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., an
3: l 7-cv-00417-AC
ORDER AND OPINION
SILGAN WHITE CAP LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company,
ACOSTA, Magistrate Judge:
Trailblazer Food Products moves to compel Silgan White Cap to produce internal
communications pertaining to Silgan's response to Trailblazer's complaint that Silgan made and
supplied Trailblazer with negligently manufactured food container .lids. Trailblazer also seeks to
compel Silgan to produce the business calendars for Silgan employees who attended meetings at
which they discussed Trailblazer's complaint. Silgan responds that the attorney work-product
doctrine bars discovery of the internal communications Trailblazer seeks because those
Page 1 - ORDER AND OPINION
communications occuned after Trailblazer asserted a claim for damages and otherwise would
not have been created.
Silgan seeks a determination from the court regarding disclosure of the content of its
Product Specification Reviews ("PSRs") prepared for use in manufacturing lids for customers
other than Trailblazer. Silgan itself does not object to producing these PSRs, but at least one of
Silgan's customers has objected to its PSRs being provided to Trailblazer and has asked the
court to not order its PSRs produced to Trailblazer. Silgan's customer asserts that its PSRs
contain proprietaty information which, if disclosed to Trailblazer, would severely damage its
competitive position in the industry.
Trailblazer's motion (ECF No. 23) to compel is denied. Silgan generated the internal
communications in anticipation of litigation and its communications would not otherwise have
been created but for Trailblazer's claim for damages. Regarding the objecting customer's PSRs,
Silgan is to produce them consistent with this order, as described below.
Trailblazer manufacturers jams, jellies, and organic fruit spread. Silgan manufacturers
and supplies lids for food and beverage products, and it applies a protective coating to the
underside of its lids to fit the specific characteristics of the food product the lid will cover.
Trailblazer discovered a black substance on the inside of lids that Silgan manufactured for
Trailblazer in 2016 for use in packaging Trailblazer's organic fiuit spread.
Page 2 - ORDER AND OPINION
In its lawsuit,
Trailblazer alleges that Silgan negligently applied the wrong number of coatings to the lids it
sold to Trailblazer.
Trailblazer first notified Silgan of the non-conforming lids on October 18, 2016. Silgan
investigated Trailblazer's complaint and responded to Trailblazer on October 26, 2016. During
the following two weeks the parties continued to discuss what had become an on-going problem
for Trailblazer and Silgan's further investigation to dete1mine its cause.
On November 14, 2016, Rob Miller, Trailblazer's CEO, emailed Silgan that one of
Trailblazer's customers announced it was "no longer going to be selling the product" because its
own customers had returned the product because of the black substance. Miller then said:
Understanding that you need to continue your work to determine why there are
fissures/pits in the [lid's inside] coating, we need to change gears and talk about
the financial impact of the coating failure.
Preliminarily, we have direct damages of approximately $7.Smm and indirect
damages of $2.0mm and we need to staii a conversation, right now, with senior
management at Silgan about how to address the damages.
(ECF No. 23, Ex. B., at 6 (underline in original).) Miller then asked for the contact inf01mation
"of the person best able to address the financial issues associated with the coating failure[.]"
Silgan 's Customer Incident ("CJ") Process.
Silgan follows the procedure contained in its CI Process policy ("the Policy") (ECF No.
30, Ex. A) for responding to customer complaints.
Relevant to Trailblazer's motion is the
"Procedure" section of the Policy that mandates the steps to be taken for investigating and
responding to every customer complaint:
Page 3 - ORDER AND OPINION
The CAS is responsible for entering the CI into the system.
To log into the Silgan CI system:
spx, under Customer Complaints
Enter login name and password
The CAS is to enter ALL necessary CI infonnation. The
Complaint Summary section must include specific information
sun·ounding what happened, the impact to the customer, the
frequency of the issue, and any other pertinent facts. Details will
facilitate more thorough investigation, root cause analysis, and
It is critical that physical samples and/or digital photographs of
defective product be provided to the CI recipient as quickly as
possible. Digital photographs and other electronic documents
should be attached to the CI.
The CI number will be automatically assigned. The CI will be
automatically sent to a fixed distribution list based upon the plant
of manufacture and the claim amount associated with the CI.
Cis are permanent records of customer issues and are intended to be shared with
the customer. For these reasons, entries should be professional and follow these
Customer emails are not to be copied and pasted into the Complaint
Summary section. The relevant information from customer emails should
be summarized in the Complaint Summaty section.
If a personal name is used in an entty, the title of the person named should
also be included.
The CAS is responsible for sending a complaint receipt
acknowledgement to the customer within two working days of
All Cis require a thorough investigation, root cause analysis, and
cotTective action. The CI response must contain a detailed
investigation summary, documentation of records review, systems
in place, analysis of system failure, root cause(s), and corrective
Page 4 - ORDER AND OPINION
action. The corrective action must include a process change and/or
equipment modification. Retraining is not a corrective action.
The Plant Quality Manager or designee is responsible for
conducting an INVENTORY REVIEW when a CI is received
to evaluate risk to Silgan and customer inventories. A copy of
the Inventory Review is to be kept on-file.
The target for CI response completion is within 21 calendar days
after receiving the samples.
In some cases, a 21 day response time is not possible due to the
complexity of the issue. In cases where a 21 day response time is
not possible, the Plant Quality Manager (or responsible party in the
case of sales Cis) is responsible for issuing an initial response.
Either the completed response or the initial response is due to the
customer within 21 calendar days of receiving samples.
An initial response is a phone call or email update to the customer
regarding the investigation and resolution of the issue.
The Plant Quality Manager is responsible for entering all CI
Attachments can be uploaded electronically to the CI response.
Once the response is saved and routed, an internal copy goes to the
Plant Manager who is responsible for issuing the final approval.
After Plant Manager approval, the CI response is closed and is sent
to the entire fixed distribution for the manufacturing facility.
CI Withdrawal/ Redirect/ Reclassify:
When it is discovered that a CI should be withdrawn, redirected or have a status
change (i.e. moved from a level one to a level two CI) the recipient of the CI must
make such request in writing. The written request should be sent to the CAS,
Director of Customer Service, Plant Quality Manager, and Corporate Quality
Manager. The written request should contain all pe1tinent data supporting the
withdrawal, re-direction, or change in status. The Director of Customer Service
will authorize all re-directs, transfers, or changes to the status of a CI.
(ECF No. 30, Ex. A, at 2-3 (bold, underline, and all capitals emphasis in original).)
Silgan 's response to Trailblazer's complaint.
Silgan entered Trailblazer's complaint into Silgan's system on October 18, 2016, using
what appears to be a PDF fillable form designed for implementing the Policy's steps. (ECF No.
30, at 7.)
Under "Complaint Summary" Silgan entered this description:
Page 5 - ORDER AND OPINION
complaining about unknown substance inside the cap. Tony [Defrancesco] is looking into this.
Pictures attached." Under "Investigation Summary," Silgan stated:
The customer, Trailblazer Foods, has complained that after filling [the food
containers] an unknown substance is present on the inside of the caps after the
strawberry preserves are opened. They are concerned that the substance appears
to be CO!Tosion.
Samples of the closures that were opened were sent to the plant and forwarded to
Downers Grove for testing. Samples that arrived at the plant had a grey substance
stuck to the inside surface of the closure, mostly around the plastisol/coating
interface This substance could easily be removed and when removed it revealed
no coating breaks under the substance. Samples were forwarded to Downers
Grove for testing.
Closures were washed, all of the substance on the closures washed off in water.
No coating breaks or corrosion was evident. Closures were then tested in copper
sulfate. Again, not c01rnsion was noted. Unknown substance is not corrosion.
Report from Downers Grove lab is attached.
(ECF No. 30, at 7-8.) Under "Corrective Action/Root Cause" Silgan concluded: "The origin of
the substance inside the processed samples is unknown. This substance is not corrosion." (ECF
No. 30, at 8.)
On October 26, 2016, Tony Defrancesco, Silgan's West Coast Technical Service
Supervisor, emailed to Silgan a copy of a lab report containing Silgan's test results of exemplar
(ECF No. 26, Ex. A.) The rep01t contained photographs of the lids,
showing the undersides of the lids before and after testing, along with captions outlining the
testing steps. (ECF No. 26, Ex. A, at 5-6.) The report stated two conclusions, first that the
"substance on the surface of the closure was not a result of coating failure," and second that the
"source of the substance on the surface of the closure was indeterminate." (ECF No. 26, Ex. A,
Page 6 - ORDER AND OPINION
Silgan's response to Trailblazer's November 14, 2016 email.
At some point after receiving Miller's November 14, 2016 email, Daniel Carson, Silgan's
Sr. Vice President and General Counsel, took steps to coordinate Silgan's response to and
preparation for what he believed would become a legal claim. (ECF No. 28, at 1-2.) Distinct
from Carson's experience with other customer complaints was Trailblazer's asse1tion of
significant damages and its request for the involvement of Silgan's high-level management.
(ECF No. 28, at 2.) Carson began communicating with Silgan employees likely to be involved
in Silgan's further response and he began to assess Silgan's future strategy for defending
Trailblazer's claim. (ECF No. 28, at 2.) Carson also notified Silgan's insurers of Trailblazer's
claim, took steps to preserve relevant documentation, and acted to protect as privileged Silgan's
internal communications about the claim. (ECF No. 28, at 2.) Carson stated that these steps and
his involvement were not typical in responding to a customer complaint. (ECF No. 28, at 2.)
Trailblazer filed its lawsuit against in Multnomah County Circuit Court on January 18,
2017, and added Silgan as a defendant on February 17, 2017. Silgan removed the case to this
court on March 14, 2017.
Package Specification Reviews ("PSRs") are Silgan-created forms used to identify the
customer's product and document the product's characteristics, such as pH level and the
presence or absence of vinegar. Silgan uses the information in the PSRs to design a lid suitable
for the particular product's characteristics, including the proper number of coating layers to
apply to the underside of the lid.
Page 7 - ORDER AND OPINION
Trailblazer alleges Silgan should have applied two coating layers instead of one to the
undersides of the lids it made for Trailblazer. During discovery Trailblazer served a request for
production on Silgan asking for PSRs for other Silgan customers. Trailblazer contends other
customers' PSRs are relevant to inform Trailblazer whether the specification Silgan designed
and applied to Trailblazer's lids was consistent with Silgan's practices and procedures.
Silgan itself does not object to the relevancy of the PSRs Trailblazer seeks and does not
object to Trailblazer receiving those documents, but one of Silgan's customers does object to the
production of its products' PSRs.
The objecting customer contends that disclosure of its
products' PSRs would reveal propriety inf01mation to its competitors in the industry and damage
its market competitiveness. The objecting customer asserts that neither redaction or a protective
order is adequate to address these risks. Trailblazer responds that Silgan produced relevant PSRs
for all its other customers in unredacted form, and that none of Silgan's other customers objected
to the production of their PSRs or required Silgan to redact them.
The discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not entitle an
opposing litigant to "invad[e] the privacy of an attorney's course of preparation[.]" Hickman v.
Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 512 (1947). The work product doctrine announced in Hickman protects
"from discovery documents and tangible things prepared by a party or his representative in
anticipation oflitigation." Admiral Ins. Co. v. United States District Court, 881F.2d1486, 1494
(9th Cir.1989). See also FED R. C!V. P. 26(b)(3) (stating that documents prepared in anticipation
Page 8 - ORDER AND OPINION
of litigation generally are not subject to discove1y). To qualify for work-product protection,
(1) be " 'prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial,' " and (2) be
prepared "by or for another patty or by or for that other party's representative.' "
California Pub. Utils. Comm 'n, 892 F.2d 778, 780-81 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting FED. R. Crv. P.
"The work-product rnle is not a privilege but a qualified immunity protecting from
discovery documents and tangible things prepared by a party or his representative in anticipation
of litigation." Admiral Ins. Co., 881 F.2d at 1494. The primaiy purpose of the work product rule
is to "prevent exploitation of a party's efforts in prepai'ing for litigation." Id. Work product
protection applies to materials prepared by non-lawyers. Nichol v. City of Springfield, No. 6:14cv-1983-AA, 2015 WL 13229184, at *2 (D. Or. Dec. 18, 2015) (observing that work product
protection expanded on the rule announced in Hickman in 1970 as Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(b) (3)), citing 1970 Advisory Committee Notes to FED. R. C!V. P. 26 (b)(3)
(identifying "confusion and disagreement as to the scope of the Hickman work-product doctrine,
paiiicularly whether it extends beyond work actually perfo1med by lawyers" as one of the
"major difficulties visible in the [pre-1970] case law").
Determining whether or not to extend work-product protection to a particular document
may turn on whether the document was created for a "single purpose" or for a "dual purpose." A
single-purpose document is one created exclusively in anticipation of litigation and clearly
passes the two-paii test for work-product protection stated in California Public Utilities. US. v.
Torf, 357 F.3d 900, 907 (9th Cir. 2004). A dual-purpose document is one created both in
Page 9 - ORDER AND OPINION
anticipation of litigation but also for an independent non-litigation purpose that would have
prompted the document's creation in the same or a substantially similar form. Id. at 907-08.
Thus, a document created in the normal course of a party's business operations but also relevant
to an anticipated lawsuit might be subject to discovery. See, e.g., Amy's Kitchen v. Stukel
Mountain Organics LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-00071-CL, 2016 WL 9406695, at *3 (D. Or. Sept.
28, 2016) ("Even if a document is prepared partially for litigation and partially in the normal
course of business - i.e., for a "dual purpose" - the Court must consider the totality of the
circumstances to determine whether or not it would have been created in a substantially similar
form but for the prospect of litigation.").
Dual-pmpose documents are subject to the "because of' standard: a document should be
deemed prepared "in anticipation of litigation" and thus eligible for work-product protection
under Rule 26(b )(3) if" 'in light of the nature of the document and the factual situation in the
particular case, the document can be fairly said to have been prepared or obtained because of the
prospect of litigation.' "
US. v. Tor/, 357 F.3d at 907, quoting CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT,
ARTHUR R. MILLER, and RICHARD L. MARCUS, 8 FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 2024
(2d ed. 1994). The "because of' standard does not consider whether litigation was a primmy or
secondary motive behind the creation of a document, but instead considers the totality of the
circumstances and affords protection when it can fairly be said that the "document was created
because of anticipated litigation, and would not have been created in substantially similar form
but for the prospect of that litigation[.]" US. v. Tor/, 357 F.3d at 908 (citation omitted). "When
there is a true independent purpose for creating a document, work product protection is less
Page 10 - ORDER AND OPINION
likely, but when two purposes are profoundly interconnected, the analysis is more complicated."
Id. at 908. Dual-purpose documents will be afforded work-product protection if "their litigation
purpose so permeates any non-litigation purpose that the two purposes cannot be discretely
separated from the factual nexus as a whole." Id. at 910.
"Parties may obtain discove1y of regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any pmiy's claim or defense[.]"
R. Crv. P. 26(b)(l). The court may enter a protective
order to limit the extent of and conditions for allowing discovery, including "requiring that a
trade secret or other confidential resem·ch, development, or commercial information not be
revealed or be revealed only in a specified way[.]"
R. Crv. P. 26(c).
Silgan's Internal Communications After November 14, 2016, Are Protected by the
Attorney Work-Product Rule.
Attorney involvement in Silgan 's internal communication is not a prerequisite to
the work-product rule's protection.
The parties' respective briefing presumes the involvement of legal counsel is a
precondition to the work-product rnle's protection, but some of the internal communications
Silgan provided for in camera review do not appear to have involved Carson.
accompanied its in camera documents with declarations from Carson and from Joshua Chesney,
Corporate Quality Manager for Silgan Closures and, a member of the team involved in
responding to Trailblazer's claim. Missing from both declarations and from Silgan's briefing is
any reference to the date on which Carson received notice of Trailblazer's claim. If attorney
Page 11 - ORDER AND OPINION
involvement is a necessaiy to the work-product rule's protection, then the date of Cai·son's first
involvement is relevant to resolving whether some or all of the internal communications
Trailblazer seeks are eligible for work-product protection.
The first evidence of Carson's involvement in Silgan's internal discussions about the
Trailblazer claim is as a "cc" recipient of a November 23, 2016 email sent among the Silgan
employees responsible for responding to Trailblazer's November 14, 2016 claim.
name does not appear as a sender, direct recipient, or "cc" recipient on any of Silgan's internal
communications created from November 14 through November 22. If those documents did not
involve Cai-son and he did not direct their creation, then there is a question whether those
documents may be eligible for work-product protection.
The court concludes that attorney involvement 1s not a precondition under Rule
23(b)(3)(A) for work-product protection, so long as the materials ai·e created in anticipation of
litigation. The staiting point is explicit the language of the rule, which states in part that "a party
may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or
for trial by or for another party or its representative (including the other paity's attorney,
consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent)[.]"
The rnle brings
within its protection documents prepared by a paity or that party's "representative" - a term
defined as "including the . . . party's attorney." By distinguishing between a party and its
attorney and applying its protection to document prepared by either group, the rule makes clear
that documents prepared without attorney involvement are protected work product.
Page 12 - ORDER AND OPINION
In Nichol v. City of Springfield, et al., No. 6:14-cv-1983-AA, 2015 WL 13229184 (D. Or.
Dec. 18, 2015), Judge Aiken of this district reached the same conclusion on similar facts.
Defendants sought materials plaintiff sent to and received from a former co-worker discussing
strategy for plaintiff's possible lawsuit against the City, an exchange not involving an attorney or
conducted at an attorney's direction. Id. at * 1. Defendants moved to compel plaintiff to produce
these materials, arguing in pmi that the documents were not sent to or received from plaintiff's
"representative" and thus did not qualify for work-product protection. Id. at *3.
Citing Tor/and "the plain meaning of the text" of Rule 26(b)(3)(A), Judge Aiken found
the plaintiffs materials to be protected work product. Nichol, 2015 WL 13229184, at *3. Judge
Aiken rejected the defendants' arguments that work-product protection should not apply to the
documents because no lawyer received or sent the materials, that no lawyer directed their
exchange or creation, and that the person with whom plaintiff corresponded was not her
It is true courts generally have applied Rule 26(b) (3 )' s protections to materials
prepared by a non-lawyer where the non-lawyer either acted as a party's
representative or acted under instructions from a pmiy's representative ..... The
demih of case law matching the precise fact pattern here, however, does not
authorize the court to ignore the plain meaning of Rule 26(b)(3 ). As one
commentator has explained, although most work-product cases discuss materials
generated by attorneys and agents of attorneys,
those cases should not be read as casting doubt on the clear scope
of Rule 26 (b)(3). Instead, their language should be considered as
identifying the creator of the work product in that case or as
reflecting the norm.
Since most work product is
attorney-generated, the language of the cases may merely reflect
this typical occurrence.
John W. Gergacz, Attorney-Corporate Client Privilege §7:21 (3d ed. 2015).
Page 13 - ORDER AND OPINION
Nichol, 2015 WL 13229184, at *3-*4 (case citations omitted). Judge Aiken concluded that the
rule's plain language protected as work-product the materials plaintiff had exchanged with her
former co-worker because those materials were created in anticipation of litigation.
This court concludes here that Silgan created its internal communications in anticipation
of litigation. The parties do not seriously dispute that November 14, 2014, is the date on which
Silgan reasonably anticipated litigation by Trailblazer and the record firmly suppo1is that
conclusion. Miller's email lacked the collaborative and patient tone that permeated his previous
emails about the non-conforming lids, and substituted in its place explicit mention of "damages"
in the millions of dollars coupled with a demand to be put in contact with a senior Silgan
management member to discuss "how to address" those damages. At that point, the focus of
Silgan's internal communications shifted from exploring the source of the lids' failure to
positioning Silgan to defend against Trailblazer's damages claim.
Because Silgan's internal communications were created in anticipation of litigation and
attorney involvement is not necessary for Rule 23(b)(3)(A)'s protection to apply, all of Silgan's
internal communications at issue here are eligible for protection under that rule.
The internal communications were created primarily to defend against
Trailblazer's claim and would not otherwise have been created.
Trailblazer contends the documents are not entitled to work-product protection if their
creation resulted from Silgan's ordinary business practice for responding to customer
complaints, but this argument fails for two reasons. First, the record establishes that on October
18, 2016, Silgan began following its normal course of business in response to Trailblazer's
complaint by implementing each of the steps mandated under the Policy, and that Silgan
Page 14 - ORDER AND OPINION
completed that process on October 26, 2016. Upon receiving Trailblazer's complaint Silgan
entered the information about the complaint into its system, using a format designed for that
purpose; it investigated Trailblazer's complaint to determine the cause of the non-confotming
lids; it generated a report of its investigation that contained both a detailed summary of the
investigation and photos of the tested lids; and it provided an analysis of the problem and a
conclusion about its cause. Silgan then provided its completed repmt to Trailblazer on October
26, 2016, eight days after Trailblazer's initial complaint and well within the required 21-day
time limit under the Policy.
The Chesney declaration (ECF No. 30) establishes that implementing the Policy is
Silgan's normal business response to customer complaints, and there is no evidence to refute his
testimony. Furthermore, Chesney's testimony is consistent with the record: the documents
Silgan generated between October 18 and October 26, 2017, and their content match the steps
the Policy requires Silgan to take in response to a customer complaint. The final step under the
Policy occutTed on October 26, 2017, when Silgan provided Trailblazer with its report of the
investigation - almost three weeks before Miller's November 14, 2016 demand email.
Second, the in camera documents show that the purpose which permeated the creation of
the internal communications was defending Trailblazer's legal claim. The documents show that
after they received Miller's email, the Silgan employees tasked with responding to Trailblazer's
complaint shifted their focus from problem-solving with Trailblazer to defending against
Trailblazer's imminent lawsuit. Fu1thermore, none of the documents created after November 14,
Page 15 - ORDER AND OPINION
2016, mirror the steps required under the Policy. Silgan would not have created the documents
in the same or substantially similar form in the normal course of business, but for Miller's email.
Accordingly, Silgan's internal communications are within the scope of Rule
26(b)(3)(A)'s protection and they are protected work-product. Trailblazer's motion to compel
theit- production is DENIED. 1
The PSRs Are Discoverable In Redacted Form.
At issue is whether Silgan negligently designed Trailblazer's lids for the specified
Relevant to that determination is the process Silgan used to determine the
specifications for the Trailblazer lids, including the number of coatings to be applied to the
underside of those lids, and whether the specifications Silgan applied to Trailblazer's lids was
consistent with Silgan's practices and procedures. At oral argument Trailblazer argued that the
additional PSR information for the objecting customer's product is relevant in part because the
number of PSRs is limited: there are only a handful of Silgan customers whose products are
substantially similar to the Trailblazer product at issue, thus increasing the importance of the
objecting customer's PSRs.
The court finds the objecting customer's PSRs must be produced. The PSRs are relevant
to Trailblazer's claim against Silgan, a conclusion Silgan concedes and the objecting customer
does not dispute. With relevancy established, the objecting customer's concerns that trade secret
information are not sufficient to deny Trailblazer relevant evidence.
At oral argument on November 3, 2017, the court denied Trailblazer's motion with
respect to Silgan employee's calendars.
Page 16 - ORDER AND OPINION
The remaining question is the form in which the objecting customer's PSRs must be
produced. The court finds that the format and conditions Trailblazer proposed in its October 31,
2017 letter achieves an acceptable balance of Trailblazer's right to relevant evidence and the
objecting customer's concerns about the disclosure of its trade secrets and propriety
information.2 Accordingly, the court orders that the objecting customer's PSR be produced
consistent with these conditions:
1. The documents are to be produced in a manner that redacts the objecting
customer's identity so as to avoid them being mistakenly circulated in a manner
inconsistent with this Opinion and Order;
2. The documents are to be produced under the designation "Confidential" as set
forth in the parties' Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 14);
3. The objecting customer's identity is to be disclosed to TBF's attorney under
the same "Confidential" designation but with the further restriction that the
identity may be shared with only one representative of Trailblazer; and
4. The designated Trailblazer representative shall not disclose the objecting
customer's identity to any other individual.
Accordingly, Trailblazer's request for the objecting customer's PSR is GRANTED. The
objecting customer's PSR shall be subject to the requirements of the court's previously entered
protective order (ECF No. 14). Violation of any of the above conditions for disclosure of the
objecting customer's PSR will result in sanctions, including preclusive or terminating sanctions,
as might be appropriate.
This parties submitted their PSR dispute to the comt informally. Their correspondence
is filed with this Opinion and Order.
Page 17 - ORDER AND OPmION
Trailblazer's motion (ECF No. 23) to compel is DENIED. Trailblazer's oral motion that
Silgan produce the objecting customer's PSR is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
d States Magistrate Judge
Page 18- ORDER AND OPINION
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?