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