Medtrica Solutions Ltd. v. Cygnus Medical, LLC

Filing 124

ORDER granting in part and denying in part dft's 119 Motion for Protective Order by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

MEDTRICA SOLUTIONS LTD., a Canada
corporation,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

v.

Case No. C12-538RSL
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

CYGNUS MEDICAL LLC, a Connecticut
limited liability company,
Defendant.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Cygnus Medical LLC’s (“Cygnus”)
“Motion for Entry of Protective Order” (Dkt. # 119). Cygnus requests that the Court enter this
district’s model protective order to protect confidential business documents. Plaintiff Medtrica
Solutions, Ltd. and Third-Party Defendant Steris Corp. (collectively “Medtrica”) request that the
Court enter a modified version of the model protective order that provides Attorney’s Eyes Only
protection for highly confidential documents. Having considered the parties’ memoranda,
supporting documents, and the remainder of the record, the Court finds as follows:
(1) This is a case involving a dispute between competitors in the medical device industry
regarding alleged patent infringement. The parties do not dispute that a protective order is
necessary to protect documents containing proprietary and confidential business information

27
28

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 1

1

related to the parties’ product development, research and marketing, and customer and supplier

2

relationships. Dkt. # 120 at 1. However, the parties’ dispute the terms of the protective order,

3

specifically, whether heightened protection is appropriate and necessary for documents

4

containing particularly sensitive business information.1 Id. at 2-3.

5

(2) A court may enter a protective order “requiring that a trade secret or other confidential

6

research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a

7

specified way.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). “Rule 26(c) confers broad discretion on the trial

8

court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required.”

9

Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984). Under this rule, the Court may, for

10

good cause, enter an order to “protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,

11

oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).

12

(3) Medtrica has met its burden of showing that good cause exists for the Court to enter a

13

protective order providing greater protection for highly sensitive business documents. The

14

documents for which Medtrica seeks Attorney’s Eyes Only protection contain information about

15

finances, trade secrets, development and marketing plans, and supplier and customer

16

information. Dkt. # 120-1 at 2. An order protecting highly sensitive, competitive information

17

from disclosure to direct competitors would protect the parties from the undue burden or the

18

specific harms associated with providing proprietary information to a direct competitor.

19

(4) Furthermore, Cygnus has not provided any reason not to enter Medtrica’s proposed

20

protective order with heightened protection for particularly sensitive business documents.

21

Rather, Cygnus appears to rely on its belief that the Court prefers the model protective order.

22

Dkt. # 119 at 2. Although the Local Civil Rules encourage parties to use the district’s model

23

protective order when the parties agree that a protective order is necessary, the Local Civil Rules

24
25
26
27
28

1

Based on Cygnus’s certification that it has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with
Medtrica, and the exhibits submitted in support of the motion, the Court finds that Cygnus has satisfied
the meet and confer requirement of Rule 26(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local
Civil Rule 26(c)(1).
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 2

1

do not expressly prohibit the use of another protective order. Rather, the Local Civil Rules

2

contemplate the submission of a stipulated protective order that deviates from the model

3

protective order and merely require “[p]arties that wish to depart from the model order [to]

4

provide the court with a redlined version identifying the departures from the model.” LCR

5

26(c)(2). Medtrica has complied with this requirement and as explained above, established good

6

cause for the departures from the model protective order. See Dkt. # 120-2.

7
8

For all of the foregoing reasons, Cygnus’s motion for protective order is GRANTED IN

9

PART. The Court GRANTS Cygnus’s motion for the entry of a protective order, but DENIES

10

Cygnus’s specific request to enter the model protective order. Instead, the Court adopts

11

Medtrica’s proposed Protective Order (Dkt. # 120-1) with the following change:

12

Paragraph 5.2(b) shall be modified as follows:

13

(b)

Testimony given in deposition or in other pretrial proceedings: the parties must

14

identify on the record, during the deposition, hearing, or other proceeding, all protected

15

testimony, without prejudice to their right to so designate other testimony after reviewing the

16

transcript. Any party or non-party may, within fifteen days after receiving a deposition

17

transcript, designate portions of the transcript, or exhibits thereto, as confidential.

18
19

Dated this 7th day of November, 2013.

20

A

21

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 3