Los Angeles E-Discovery Lawyer & Attorney : McBride Law Firm : Electronic Evidence: Santa Monica, California

In Hill v. Eddie Bauer, Magistrate Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman (Spring Street Courthouse) required production of alleged "confidential and proprietary" information without a protective order where defendant failed to provide a proper showing that the information was, in fact, confidential.

Attorneys sometimes take for granted that a protective order will be "automatic" and that a wide net can be cast around information that the client asserts is "confidential."  It is not unusual (in my experience) to refuse to produce documents until a protective order is in place--as happened here. 

But Judge Chapman would not condone this approach.  She required Eddie Bauer to prove the confidential information it sought to protect was, in fact, confidential and proprietary.  Because no proof was offered for confidentiality, and no confidentiality order was pre-negotiated in advance of the discovery due date, no protective order was granted. 

On a different subject, Judge Chapman provisionally accepted Eddie Bauer's argument (based on declarations and proof) that production of certain third party information should not occur because of "undue burden."   She allowed, however, a limited sampling of the third-party information (with certain confidential information redacted) to determine if full production should be required.

This ruling is a good reminder for counsel to take nothing for granted in asserting confidentiality; to be prepared with proof and declarations as to why certain information is confidential and/or unduly burdensome; and to negotiate a protective order before the discovery due date, if possible.

Case Highlights:

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks