Williamson v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
3:15-cv-07812
S.D.W. VaMar 24, 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Andrew and Yolanda Williamson sued Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company; a discovery dispute over a protective order followed.
- Court entered the District’s standard protective order on December 9, 2015 after Plaintiffs initially objected to entry timing and confidentiality but not to the order’s wording; Defendant produced confidential documents under that order.
- After production, Plaintiffs moved to modify the protective order to prevent return of "related notes and memoranda," arguing those materials are protected work product and experts must retain their notes.
- Defendant opposed, arguing the modification would undermine the order by allowing parties to retain confidential content disguised as work product and noted it had produced thousands of pages relying on the order; it offered Plaintiffs the alternative of destroying such notes at case end.
- The Court reviewed Fourth Circuit and district-court standards for modifying protective orders and found Plaintiffs bore the burden to show good cause for modification.
- The Court denied the motion, finding Plaintiffs failed to show good cause, especially given the post-production timing and Defendant’s offer permitting destruction of notes as a compromise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the protective order should be modified to allow recipients (including experts) to keep "related notes and memoranda" that may incorporate confidential material | Williamson: The return/production requirement would force disclosure of protected work product; recipients and experts need to retain archival work-product notes | Liberty Mutual: Modification would let recipients retain confidential content by folding it into work product; changing terms after production is unfair; offers destruction as alternative | Denied. Plaintiffs failed to show good cause to modify the order; destruction option addresses work-product concerns |
| Whether post-production timing of the modification request supports relief | Williamson: did not assert timing argument as a basis for relief (focus on work product) | Liberty Mutual: Plaintiffs waited until after production to raise the issue; that undermines modification request | Court relied on timing against Plaintiffs, noting modification after production weighed against relief |
| Availability of alternative remedies to address work-product concerns | Williamson: seeks ability to retain archival copies under protective regime | Liberty Mutual: offered that Plaintiffs may destroy notes/memoranda instead of producing them to avoid either party retaining the other’s confidential material | Court found Defendant’s alternative adequate to protect work product without modifying order |
| Whether district court has authority and standard to modify an entered protective order | Williamson: sought modification under court’s discretion | Liberty Mutual: invoked reliance on entered order and stability of discovery process | Court affirmed that it has discretion to modify for good cause and found good cause not shown here |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. (Under Seal), 794 F.2d 920 (4th Cir. 1986) (district court discretion to modify protective orders)
- SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Synthon Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., 210 F.R.D. 163 (M.D.N.C. 2002) (factors for modifying protective orders)
- In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 836 F.2d 1468 (4th Cir. 1988) (importance of reliable protective orders to encourage full disclosure)