INGENCO Holdings, LLC v. ACE American Insurance Company

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE INGENCO HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., 10 pein Case No. 2:13-cv-00543-RAJ 1 “ ORDER || ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, 13 Defendant.

14 —— 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to modify the protective order || and for other various relief. Dkt. # 179. The Court DENIES in part and DEFERS in || part Plaintiffs’ motion.

19 Il. BACKGROUND 20 Guild Associates, Ltd. (“Guild”) is party to this action only as an intervenor to || designate its proprietary and trade secret information under the current Protective Order.

22 || Plaintiffs claim that Guild has habitually over-designated materials as confidential. Dkt. # || 179 at 2.

24 In July 2019, Plaintiff Bio-Energy (Washington), LLC (“BEW”) provided Guild || with a detailed list of documents it may need for trial. BEW requested that Guild || immediately start its review those documents and recently attempted to obtain an order || from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio for the same. Jd. at 3-4. That |! ORDER -1 || effort was only moderately successful and now Plaintiffs move for relief in this court.

2 || Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to limit the definition of “Confidential” materials in the || protective order to those materials containing bona-fide trade secrets; to order Guild to || review all documents previously designated as “Confidential” and remove confidential || designations for documents that do not contain trade secrets; and to appoint a Special || Master to hear disputes regarding confidentiality. Jd. at 9-12. Plaintiffs assert that without || this relief, it will be virtually impossible to conduct a public trial. Id. 8 Ill. DISCUSSION 9 After reviewing the submissions by the parties, the Court finds no basis to modify || the protective order. Protective orders may cover confidential, proprietary, or private || information that warrants special protection. LCR 26(c)(2). Therefore, Guild was not || limited to designating trade secrets when it first started producing documents. See Foltz v. |) State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that a concern in || modifying a protective order is whether that order was relied upon in the decision to || produce documents); Beckman Indus. Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 475 (9th Cir. || 1992). “[C]hanging the ground rules later is to be avoided because protective orders that || cannot be relied upon will not foster cooperation through discovery.” Wright, Miller & || Marcus § 2044.1 (3d. ed.) (requiring litigants to redo discovery is wasteful and delays || litigation).

20 The main issue is really the procedure by which Guild will review confidential || materials for trial. Ultimately, the more efficient process would be for Plaintiffs to identify || what documents they reasonably intend to use before Guild reviews for confidentiality.

23 || Plaintiffs’ proposal of having Guild review and possibly re-designate all produced || documents imposes an unnecessary burden on a non-party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1).

25 || As such, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to provide Guild and the Court with the exhibit || lists and deposition designations for Guild’s confidentiality review 30 days after the close || of discovery. Guild shall then have 30 days to file a motion to seal in accordance with the |! ORDER —2 || local rules of this Court. At that time, the Court will determine whether the appointment || of a Special Master is necessary.

3 IV. CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES in part and DEFERS in part || Plaintiffs’ motion.

DATED this_4 “day of February, 2020. : 11 The Honorable Richard“. Jones b United States District Court Judge |! ORDER -3