Christopher v. Renewable Energy Systems Americas, Inc., et al

Filing 33

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, granting in part and denying in part, consistent with this order 23 Motion to Compel; and granting 24 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (LR, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

CASEY CHRISTOPHER, a single
man,

NO: 2:16-CV-30-RMP

8
Plaintiff,
9
10
11

v.
RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and SIEMENS ENERGY,
INC., a Delaware corporation,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL AND
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

12
Defendants.
13
14

BEFORE THE COURT are Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 23, and

15

Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order, ECF No. 24. A telephonic conference

16

was held in this matter on May 10, 2016. The Court has considered the motions,

17

the record, oral arguments, and is fully informed.

18

Plaintiff alleges deficiencies in Defendant Siemens Energy, Inc.’s responses

19

to discovery requests, which he argues are inadequate and fail to comply with FED.

20

R. CIV. P. 26. See ECF No. 23. The motion does not specify precisely what

21
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER ~ 1

1

disclosure Plaintiff would like the Court to compel, but Plaintiff points to Siemens’

2

contention that its investigative file contains “proprietary” information, and argues

3

broadly that Defendant fails to adhere to proper discovery procedures. See id.

4

Additionally, Plaintiff argues that Siemens refuses to properly respond to discovery

5

requests absent an unnecessary protective order, and that Siemens will not allow

6

Plaintiff’s representatives to inspect its premises without signing a waiver form.

7

See id.

8
9

Defendant Siemens has stated a willingness to allow Plaintiff to inspect its
premises, provided that Plaintiff will adhere to Defendant’s precautions by

10

agreeing to the terms of a routine waiver form. The Court has reviewed the waiver

11

form and finds that it is reasonable that Siemens require the waiver form to be

12

signed prior to allowing an “on-site” inspection by Plaintiff’s representatives.

13

At the telephonic hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel discussed two other issues that

14

remain outstanding: (1) Siemens Energy, Inc.’s contention that its “investigative

15

file” regarding the underlying incident contains proprietary materials; and (2)

16

Defendants’ expressed concern regarding the protection of information within their

17

business contracts. Both Defendants stated that they will fully comply with all

18

pending discovery requests if a protective order is put in place.

19
20

Plaintiff agreed that one of Defendant Siemens’ business contracts should be
held confidential and initially proposed a protective order referencing that one

21
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER ~ 2

1

document. See ECF No. 25-3. Defendant Siemens also expressed concern

2

regarding revealing their investigative processes, which they allege are proprietary,

3

but have agreed to provide the complete investigation file “upon issuance of an

4

appropriate protective order.” See e.g., ECF No. 23 at 11.

5

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1)(G), the Court may limit the way in

6

which disclosure of sensitive discovery may be conducted. The Court, having

7

been fully advised of the parties’ concerns in this matter, finds good cause to enter

8

a Protective Order regarding discovery materials in this case in order to allow the

9

discovery phase of this litigation to proceed as quickly and as economically as

10
11

possible.
There is insufficient evidence before the Court at this juncture to determine

12

whether Defendants’ investigative processes would qualify as “confidential,” but

13

since the Court is granting the Motion for a Protective Order, Defendants are

14

ordered to provide the relevant investigative materials to Plaintiff subject to the

15

Protective Order. After review of the materials, Plaintiff may challenge whether

16

those materials justify protection as “confidential.”

17

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Joint Motion

18

for Protective Order, ECF No. 24, is GRANTED. The Protective Order is entered

19

in this docket as ECF No. 32.

20
21
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER ~ 3

1
2
3

With the Protective Order in effect, IT IS HEREBY FURTHER
ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 23, is GRANTED in part and

4

DENIED in part, consistent with this Order. Defendants shall immediately

5

produce all remaining discovery, including their investigative files.

6
7
8
9
10

2. The parties shall proceed with discovery pursuant to the terms set forth in
the Protective Order, ECF No. 32.
The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to
counsel.
DATED this 19th day of May 2016.

11
12
13

s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER ~ 4