Filed: Aug. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 19, 2015
Summary: ORDER HOWARD D. McKIBBEN , District Judge . Before the court is petitioner Becton Dickinson GmbH and Becton Dickinson Austria GmbH's emergency motion to de-designate documents marked confidential and memorandum of points and authorities (#27). Respondents Thomas C. Kuracina and Injectimed, Inc. filed a response (#30). The court, having considered each of the documents, and good cause appearing, finds as follows: 1) The documents the subject of the current motion are "private materials une
Summary: ORDER HOWARD D. McKIBBEN , District Judge . Before the court is petitioner Becton Dickinson GmbH and Becton Dickinson Austria GmbH's emergency motion to de-designate documents marked confidential and memorandum of points and authorities (#27). Respondents Thomas C. Kuracina and Injectimed, Inc. filed a response (#30). The court, having considered each of the documents, and good cause appearing, finds as follows: 1) The documents the subject of the current motion are "private materials unea..
More
ORDER
HOWARD D. McKIBBEN, District Judge.
Before the court is petitioner Becton Dickinson GmbH and Becton Dickinson Austria GmbH's emergency motion to de-designate documents marked confidential and memorandum of points and authorities (#27). Respondents Thomas C. Kuracina and Injectimed, Inc. filed a response (#30).
The court, having considered each of the documents, and good cause appearing, finds as follows:
1) The documents the subject of the current motion are "private materials unearthed during discovery," and therefore the appropriate standard of consideration is "good cause." See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2009); Kamakana v. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).
2) In determining whether good cause exists to permit the designation of materials as confidential, the court must "balanc[e] the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality." Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1205, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). The court finds that petitioner has made an insufficient showing that the need for discovery of all of the material contained in the subject documents outweighs respondent's need for confidentiality. Therefore, the court hereby DENIES petitioner Becton Dickinson GmbH and Becton Dickinson Austria GmbH's emergency motion to de-designate the documents that are the subject of the current motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
