283 F.R.D. 617
E.D. Wash.2012Background
- Order concerns Defendants Hartford, Battelle, and Plan’s motion for protective order governing discovery; court previously compelled production of disability-benefits decisioning materials; dispute centers on whether materials remain confidential and may be used in other cases; Hartford asserts Manual and related materials are trade secrets/confidential proprietary information; plaintiffs seek broader use and retention of materials by counsel; court to determine scope and terms of protective order including designation and retention rules.
- Court previously granted in part and denied in part Takata’s motion to compel production of rules, guidelines, and criteria relevant to disability determinations; protective order discussion followed a telephonic status conference about sensitive materials; parties could not agree on stipulated protective order; court considers good cause to protect trade secrets and confidential information.
- Court recognizes materials contain technical tools and best practices giving Hartford a competitive advantage; disclosure could harm Hartford’s trade secrets; court has already found relevance of these materials to potential conflicts of interest and procedural irregularities; protective order should limit use to this case and restrict access and reproduction; court adopts protective order with modifications.
- Court notes the need for a definitional boundary for Confidential Information and requires explicit designation procedures; additional safeguards are added to the protective order.
- Final ruling: motion granted in part and denied in part; protective order adopted with specified modifications to Confidential Information designation; Plaintiff’s counsel barred from retaining materials for use in other cases unless compelled again with proper showing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a protective order is warranted to shield confidential materials | Takata argues broader disclosure should be allowed for other cases | Hartford/Battelle contend confidential materials require protection | Good cause supports protection; materials designated confidential not public. |
| Whether plaintiff’s counsel may retain discovered materials for other cases | Counsel should be able to use material in future cases | Materials may be used only in this case | Counsel may not retain; must show necessity anew for use in other cases. |
| Whether the protective order should include a definition of Confidential Information | Existence of broad, vague designation | Need clarity and enforceable standards | Order requires addition defining Confidential Information and designation process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (good cause balancing; confidentiality et al.)
- Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984) (public access presumption for discovery materials)
- Remington Arms Co., Inc. v. United States, 952 F.2d 1029 (8th Cir. 1991) (protective order; trade secrets; limited use)
- Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19 (1987) (confidential information as property; trade secret context)
- Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. v. Syngenta Crop Protection, 224 F.R.D. 53 (D. Conn. 2004) (restatement-like definition; trade secret context)