Trailblazer Food Products, Inc. v. Silgan White Cap LLC

Filing 32

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)

Page 1 of2

FW: Trailblazer Foods v. Silgan, US Dist Case No. 3:17-cv-00417-AC
Parker, Christopher
to:
[e-mail], Parker, Joel
10/30/2017 01 :24 PM
Cc:
"Anderson, Dave", "Xochihua, Paul R.", "Keller, Rayna L."
Hide Details
From: "Parker, Christopher" <[e-mail]>
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "Parker, Joel"
<[e-mail]>,
Cc: "Anderson, Dave" <[e-mail]>, "Xochihua, Paul R."
<[e-mail]>, "Keller, Rayna L." <[e-mail]>
Histmy: This message has been replied to.
2 Attachments

Trailblazer v. Silgan.pdf

Your Honor:
Attached is the letter from the customer that is objecting to production of the materials at issue (name
omitted per the Order). Please let us know of any questions or if there is any additional information we
can provide.
Chris
From: Parker, Christopher
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 10:17 AM
To: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>; 'Parker, Joel' <[e-mail]>
Cc: Anderson, Dave <[e-mail]>; Davis, Lauren <ldavis@davisrothw ell.com>; Keller, Rayna L.
<rkeller@davisroth well.com>; Xochihua, Paul R.<[e-mail]>
Subject: Trailblazer Foods v. Silgan, US Dist Case No. 3:17-cv-00417-AC

Mr. Gale and Counsel:
One of Silgan's customers is objecting to production of the materials at issue. Per the Court's Order,
attached is a copy of the letter from this customer (company name omitted).
The Court's Order says to email this directly to Judge Acosta. Mr. Gale, are you able to forward this to
the Judge, or provide His Honor's email address so I can send? Thank you.
Chris

Christopher M. Parker
ATTORNEY IN OREGON & WASHINGTON

T [phone] F [phone]
200 SW Market St, Suite 1800, Portland OR 97201

file:///C:/Users/JAcosta/AppData/Local/Temp/4/notes2CD76E/-web 1472.htm

11/30/2017

Page 2 of2

Davis Rothwell
EARLE & X6CHIHUA""

E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the intended recipient
(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this message
has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete thls message and any attachments. If
you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any
attachment is strictly prohibited. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect
any computer system into which it is received, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure it is virus~free. No responsibility is accepted by
the sender or DAVIS ROTHWELL EARLE & X6CHIHUA, P.C. for any loss or damage arising from any such virus or defect.

file:///C:/U sers/JAcosta/AppData/Local/Temp/4/notes2CD76E/~web 1472.htm

11/30/2017

October 30, 2017
Honorable Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta
Mark 0. Hatfield United States Courthouse
Room 1127
1000 Southwest Third Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204-2941
Re:

Case Name:
Trailblazer Food Products. Inc. v. Silgan White Cap LLC
Case Number: 3:17-cv-00417-AC

Your Honor:
This letter is submitted by my company, a customer of defendant Silgan White Cap LLC ("Silgan"),
pursuant to the rulings at the telephonic hearing on October 24, 2017. My company is a consumer
packaged goods company specializing in food and is a direct competitor of plaintiff Trailblazer Foods
Products, Inc. ("Trailblazer"). I am my company's in-house counsel. Counsel for Silgan provided a copy
of the proceeding minutes and requested I draft a letter to regarding the discoverability of the materials
at issue.

It came to my company's attention that Trailblazer seeks the production of all metal closure package
specification reviews ("PSRs") for my company's food products that were either in place and used to
make closures from 2014-2017, or PSRs that were created during that time. I understand that
Trailblazer seeks PSRs in their un-redacted form, which would include not only my company's name, but
also the identification of specific products. My company objects greatly to the disclosure of these
documents. Although prepared by Silgan, the PSRs contain proprietary, trade secret information from
my company; specifically, my company's processing conditions utilized to optimize product attributes,
such as color and flavor, for products in direct competition with Trailblazer's products.
My company, like most CPG companies, spends millions of dollars on research and development as well
as relies on our products' specific attributes to set its products apart from our competition. As such, my
company strenuously guards our products formulations and processing conditions. Allowing this
information into the hands of our competitors, in any form, is life-threatening; especially if released to
competitors in the private label business.
I understand that Trailblazer alleges that Silgan metal closures eroded, resulting in business loss and
other damages. However, my company fails to see how proprietary and trade secret information
regarding our processing conditions, that directly affect key product attributes, are relevant to this case;
especially when the information sought is specific to companies other than Trailblazer. Even if
Trailblazer could argue the PSRs are somehow relevant and discoverable, the risk of damage to a nonparty through the release of proprietary, trade secret information significantly outweighs Trailblazer's
need for this information to support its case.
I have reviewed the protective order entered in this case and have expressed concern to counsel for
Silgan that it would allow those within Trailblazer to view any information produced. Although the
protective order states that Trailblazer may not use the information for any purpose outside litigation, I
am sure this Court can appreciate the importance of a company's trade secrets, especially as they relate

to important product attributes. Unfortunately, once this information is seen for whatever reason, it is
impossible to un-see.
As such, my company respectfully requests the denial of Trailblazer's request for PSRs involving our
products. Please let me know if I can provide any further information.
Regards,
Consumer Packaged Goods Company and Customer of Defendant Silgan White Cap LLC