J. R. Simplot Company v. Washington Potato Company et al
Filing
121
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 111 Motion to Strike "Confidentiality" Designations Re Simplot Deposition Testimony; denying Defendants' request for attorneys' fees; striking as moot Defendants' 113 Motion to Seal. Clerk directed to keep the deposition transcript 114 sealed. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
6
7
8
J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY, et al.,
CASE NO. C16-1851RSM
9
10
11
12
13
Plaintiffs,
v.
WASHINGTON POTATO CO., et al.,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STRIKE SIMPLOT’S
CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS
Defendants.
14
15
16
17
18
I.
INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Strike “Confidentiality”
Designations Re Simplot Deposition Testimony. Dkt. #111. On January 11, 2017, the Court
19
entered a Stipulated Protective Order to protect several categories of information obtained
20
through discovery from public disclosure. See Dkt. #43. Under that Stipulated Protective Order,
21
Plaintiff J.R. Simplot Company (“Simplot”) designated several excerpts from the deposition
22
23
transcripts of its Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representatives as “Confidential.” Although these
deposition transcripts were not filed with the Court, Defendants disagree with fourteen of
24
25
Simplot’s confidentiality designations and now ask the Court to strike these designations as
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO STRIKE
CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS – 1
1
improper. Dkt. #111 at 6. Defendants also ask for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees for the
2
fees they incurred in bringing this motion. Id. at 6-7. Simplot disagrees with Defendants, and
3
argues that disclosure will harm its competitive standing. Dkt. #118 at 8. For the reasons
4
discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion in part and DENIES it in part.
5
6
7
8
9
II.
DISCUSSION
“When determining whether and to what extent information may be shielded from public
view, courts distinguish between materials produced during discovery but not filed with the court
versus materials attached to ‘judicial records.’” United States ex rel. Brown v. Celgene Corp.,
10
Case No. CV 10-3165 GHK (SS), 2016 WL 6542729, at *4 (C.D. Cal. March 14, 2016). Unfiled
11
information produced during discovery is not part of the judicial record, and thus a party who
12
designates a document as confidential must justify the designation by satisfying a “good cause”
13
14
15
16
17
standard. Id.; see also Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir.
2006) (“Unlike private materials unearthed during discovery, judicial records are public
documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default.”). Parties satisfy
the “good cause” standard by demonstrating that specific prejudice or harm will result if the
18
challenged information is disclosed. Celgene Corp., 2016 WL 6542729, at *4; also Medtronic
19
Vascular, Inc. v. Abbott Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., No. C-06-1066 PHJ (EMC), 2007 WL
20
4169628 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2007) (“Upon challenge, the designating party must justify each
21
22
23
document by showing good cause and demonstrate that specific prejudice or harm will result if
the [] documents (or related testimony) are disclosed.”).
24
25
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO STRIKE
CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS – 2
1
Here, Simplot fails to justify the confidentiality designations of the following five
2
excerpts of the April 10, 2017, deposition of Mark. P. Keller, and the following nine excerpts of
3
the April 11, 2017, deposition of Brent K. Moylan:
4
TRANSCRIPT
M. McKellar
M. McKellar
M. McKellar
M. McKellar
M. McKellar
B. Moylan
B. Moylan
B. Moylan
B. Moylan
B. Moylan
B. Moylan
B. Moylan
B. Moylan
B. Moylan
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
FROM PAGE/LINE(S)
12:15
20:1
80:22
24:19
158:13
45:13
46:18
48:8
50:6
50:13
54:1
180:4
180:14
206:6
TO PAGE/LINE(S)
13:7
20:18
81:8
26:2
158:23
46:1
47:3
48:18
50:10
50:14
54:10
180:6
180:19
206:19
To support maintaining the confidentiality of these excerpts, Simplot points out that testimony in
these excerpts falls within two categories of information protected by the Stipulated Protective
15
16
17
Order. Dkt. #118 at 8. Simplot also contends it does not disclose the information within these
excerpts to the public, and contends disclosure of this information would “potentially” harm its
18
competitive standing because it would “reveal to competitors information about Simplot’s
19
business strategy and/or business projections, information about the financial performance of the
20
Simplot NAFG, and Simplot employees’ internal communications regarding food safety or
21
22
23
24
25
quality.” Id. Simplot fails to convince the Court.
Instead of demonstrating the specific prejudice or harm that will result if these deposition
excerpts are disclosed, Simplot simply refers to a generalized, potential harm. See Dkt. #118 at
8. Without more information, including specific demonstrations of fact, the Court cannot
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO STRIKE
CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS – 3
1
determine whether the harm allegedly posed by disclosure is real or merely speculative. See
2
Medtronic, 2007 WL 4169628, at *2 (“good cause” not shown where party failed to support
3
good cause with “‘specific demonstrations of fact, supported where possible by affidavits and
4
concrete examples, rather than broad, conclusory allegations of harm.’”) (quoting Charles O.
5
Bradley Trust v. Zenith Capital LLC, No. C-04-2239 JSW (EMC), 2006 WL 798991 (N.D. Cal.
6
7
8
9
Mar. 24, 2006)). Consequently, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to strike the
confidentiality designations from the five excerpts of Mr. McKellar’s deposition, and the nine
excerpts of Mr. Moylan’s deposition. However, because the Court does not agree that Simplot’s
10
designation of these fourteen excerpts is “clearly unjustified,” or “made for an improper
11
purpose,” as required to impose sanctions under Section 5.1 of the Stipulated Protective Order,
12
Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees is DENIED.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
III.
CONCLUSION
Having considered Defendants’ Motion to Strike “Confidentiality” Designations Re
Simplot Deposition Testimony (Dkt. #111), Simplot’s Response thereto, Defendants’ Reply, the
declarations and exhibits attached thereto, and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby
finds and ORDERS:
1. Defendants’ Motion to Strike “Confidentiality” Designations Re Simplot
Deposition Testimony (Dkt. #111) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
2. The confidentiality designations of the following deposition excerpts are stricken:
1
2
3
4
5
1
TRANSCRIPT
M. McKellar
M. McKellar
M. McKellar
M. McKellar
M. McKellar
B. Moylan
FROM PAGE/LINE(S)
12:15
20:1
80:22
24:19
158:13
45:13
TO PAGE/LINE(S)
13:7
20:18
81:8
26:2
158:23
46:1
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO STRIKE
CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS – 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
B. Moylan
B. Moylan
B. Moylan
B. Moylan
B. Moylan
B. Moylan
B. Moylan
B. Moylan
46:18
48:8
50:6
50:13
54:1
180:4
180:14
206:6
47:3
48:18
50:10
50:14
54:10
180:6
180:19
206:19
3. Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees is DENIED; and
4. Given the Court’s resolution of the instant motion, Defendants’ Motion to Seal
(Dkt. #113) is STRICKEN as MOOT. The Clerk of the Court is directed to keep
the deposition transcripts filed at Dkt. #114 sealed; Simplot may then file a public
version of the sealed deposition transcripts that complies with this Order.
10
11
12
13
14
15
DATED this 13th day of July 2017.
A
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO STRIKE
CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS – 5
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?