Lewis v. Texas Instruments Inc Employee Health Benefits Plan et al

Filing 67

Memorandum Opinion and Order: For the foregoing reasons, the Protective Order remains unchanged, and Plaintiff's Answer in Opposition of the Protective Order [Dkt. No. 58] is OVERRULED. (See order for specifics) (Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L Horan on 11/13/2013) (mcrd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
IRIS LEWIS,
Plaintiff,
V.
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC.
EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS
PLAN, ET AL.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

No. 3:12-cv-4577-L-BN

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, a Division of Health Care Service
Corporation, Mutual Legal Reserve Company (“BCBSTX”), moved for a protective order
on October 2, 2013. See Dkt. No. 49. On October 4, 2013, Judge Lindsay entered the
proposed Protective Order submitted by BCBSTX. See Dkt. No. 51. Then, on October
20, 2013, after the Protective Order was entered, Plaintiff Iris Lewis (“Lewis”) filed an
opposition to the proposed Protective Order. See Dkt. No. 58. In her Opposition, Lewis
states that she is opposed to two provisions in the Protective Order: (1) the parties’
ability to retroactively designate previously produced documents as Classified
Information and (2) the parties’ ability to use the documents in future appeals and
litigation. See Dkt. No. 58 at 2.
BCBSTX responds that it agreed to not retroactively designate any previously
produced documents as Classified Information. See Dkt. No. 62 at 3. Based on this
agreement, the undersigned will not modify Paragraph 7 of the Protective Order as its
-1-

contents are moot.
But BCBSTX did not agree that the documents produced in this case could be
used for any future appeals or litigation. See id. at 2-3. Thus, the undersigned must
determine whether the Protective Order does in fact prohibit such actions, and, if it
does, whether the Protective Order should be modified to permit the use of the
documents obtained in this case in future appeals and litigation.
Plaintiff is correct that, at first glance, the Protective Order limits the use of the
information obtained in this case to only this case and bars its use in future litigation
and appeals. See Dkt. No. 51 at 1 (“All Classified Information produced or exchanged
in the course of this litigation shall be used solely for the purpose of preparation and
trial of this litigation and for no other purpose whatsoever and shall not be disclosed
to any person except in accordance with the terms hereof.”). The Protective Order also
has a provision, however, by which the information might be used in future cases, if
certain requirements are met. In Paragraph 8, the Protective Order that states
“[n]othing herein shall prevent disclosure beyond the terms of this order if each party
designating the information as ‘Confidential’ or ‘For Counsel Only’ (or ‘Attorneys’ Eyes
Only’) consents to such disclosure or, if the court, after notice to all affected parties,
orders such disclosures.” Id. at 5. This provision contemplates the possibility of parties’
using the confidential materials in related actions and provides a process by which a
party can attempt to expand the limits of the Protective Order’s restrictions on covered
information to provide for disclosure for use in another context – including in another
proceeding, subject to the control of the presiding judge and governing rules in the
-2-

other matter. See U.S. Philips Corp. v. Iwasaki Elec. Co., 142 F. App’x 516, 518 (2d Cir.
2005). As such, the undersigned is not convinced that Plaintiff’s representation of the
terms of the Protective Order is correct, and, moreover, the undersigned does not find
that it should be modified to freely permit the use of Classified Information in future
appeals or litigation. The Protective Order protects parties by prohibiting uses of the
documents outside of the instant litigation without first seeking permission from the
opposing parties, or, if they do not agree, the Court, to do so. Plaintiff has presented
this Court with no reason for this provision to be modified.
For the foregoing reasons, the Protective Order remains unchanged, and
Plaintiff’s Answer in Opposition of the Protective Order [Dkt. No. 58] is OVERRULED.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 13, 2013

_________________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-