Stout v. Remetronix, Inc.
298 F.R.D. 531
S.D. Ohio2014Background
- Plaintiff James K. Stout sued Remetronix, Inc. and TechMed Solutions, Inc. claiming unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the FLSA and Ohio law on behalf of himself and opt‑in field technicians; conditional collective certification was granted and fifteen opt‑ins have joined.
- Plaintiffs sought discovery of Defendants’ project hour sheets, which show estimated hours used to price installations. Plaintiffs say the sheets reveal actual time allocations and are relevant to unpaid/off‑the‑clock and capped‑hours claims.
- Defendants objected as irrelevant and as containing trade secrets/pricing information; they produced an affidavit saying the sheets are proprietary, password‑protected, shared only with managers, and could harm Defendants if competitors obtained them.
- Defendants requested production only under an attorneys’‑eyes‑only (AEO) protective order. Plaintiffs proposed a less restrictive protective order.
- The court found the hour sheets relevant to Plaintiffs’ wage claims but concluded Defendants made a specific showing of competitive harm and therefore ordered production under AEO protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance of project hour sheets | Sheets show hours allocated per installation and support claims of unpaid/offsite work and capped billing | Sheets are irrelevant to wage claims | Court: Relevant — sheets relate directly to allegations about allotted hours and unpaid time |
| Protectability as trade secrets/confidential commercial info | If confidential, protective order (but not necessarily AEO) will suffice | Sheets are proprietary pricing data; disclosure would harm competitive position; AEO needed | Court: Defendants made specific factual showing of competitive harm; AEO protective order warranted |
| Scope of disclosure | Plaintiffs wanted access (to pursue claims) | Limit review to attorneys only to prevent competitors/opt‑ins working for competitors from seeing | Court: Produce sheets but limit review to Plaintiffs’ attorneys (AEO) |
| Form of Protective Order | Plaintiffs: reasonable confidentiality restrictions | Defendants: AEO designation required; sought assurance against dissemination | Court: Ordered parties to submit a Procter & Gamble–compliant protective order specifying AEO terms by deadline |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. ACB Bus. Servs., 135 F.3d 389 (6th Cir.) (district court has broad discretion over discovery scope)
- Nemir v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 381 F.3d 540 (6th Cir.) (party seeking protective order must describe harm with particularity)
- Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89 (1981) (conclusory assertions insufficient to establish harm for protective orders)
- Deford v. Schmid Prods. Co., 120 F.R.D. 648 (D. Md.) (business context requires specific factual demonstrations to justify AEO)
- United States v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 67 F.R.D. 40 (S.D.N.Y.) (factors for evaluating trade secret/proprietary status)
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219 (6th Cir.) (standards for entry and approval of protective orders)