Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

In re Inductors Antitrust Litigation, 18-cv-00198 EJD (NC). (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20181113j45 Visitors: 5
Filed: Nov. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 09, 2018
Summary: ORDER RESOLVING DISCOVERY DISPUTE CONCERNING TWO TERMS OF PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER Re: ECF 236 NATHANAEL M. COUSINS , Magistrate Judge . Presented to the Court is a discovery dispute about two terms of a proposed protective order to regulate the use and distribution of certain confidential information in this antitrust case. The disputes are set forth in a joint letter brief at ECF 236. A redlined version of the protective order is filed at ECF 237-2. With the goal of a just, speedy, and
More

ORDER RESOLVING DISCOVERY DISPUTE CONCERNING TWO TERMS OF PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Re: ECF 236

Presented to the Court is a discovery dispute about two terms of a proposed protective order to regulate the use and distribution of certain confidential information in this antitrust case. The disputes are set forth in a joint letter brief at ECF 236. A redlined version of the protective order is filed at ECF 237-2. With the goal of a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this case, the Court resolves the disputed issues without need for a hearing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.

The first issue is whether the Court should adopt Plaintiffs' proposal for resolving challenges to the privileged status of "clawed back" documents. Plaintiffs' proposal allows a party challenging a privilege "claw back" to use the procedure provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B). The Court finds that plaintiffs' proposal is supported by good cause. The Court therefore GRANTS plaintiffs' proposal on this issue.

The second issue is Defendants' proposal to restrict access to discovery materials for any witness "employed by [or] otherwise engaged in commercial activities or decision-making for another manufacturer, seller or customer of Inductors" or with the "present intention" to do so. Defendants assert that this is a "necessary constraint" to protect their confidential information. On the other hand, Plaintiffs object that this limitation would impair their ability to use consulting and testifying witnesses. The Court is not persuaded that there is "good cause" for Defendants' proposed limitation. The other provisions of the protective order can reasonably protect the Defendants' confidential information.

Plaintiffs are therefore ordered by November 15 to file the proposed protective order with these two issues resolved as directed in this Order. No costs or fees are awarded.

Finally, the motions for telephonic participation, ECF 243-246, are denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer