Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-06210/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-06210-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LEE HOLT,

Petitioner,

v.

KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden of San Quentin 

State Prison,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:97-cv-06210-DAD-SAB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 

REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

(ECF No. 252)

Before the Court is Respondent‟s December 14, 2015 stipulated request for a protective 

order relating to materials from training sessions at which Respondent‟s expert, Dr. Marvin 

Firestone, presented or participated (hereinafter collectively the “Confidential Materials”). The 

Confidential Materials are to be produced to Petitioner pursuant to discovery order. (See ECF 

No. 248 at 2:10-14.)

I.

DISCUSSION

The parties represent the Confidential Materials are training materials that are proprietary 

in the Western Institute of Legal Medicine, a non-profit organization of Dr. Firestone and Dr. 

Dan Tennenhouse, both of whom present the Confidential Materials at professional training 

sessions offered by the Western Institute of Legal Medicine. The parties further represent that 

Case 1:97-cv-06210-DAD Document 254 Filed 12/16/15 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Dr. Firestone has agreed to the terms and condition of the protective order, post. 

In the Ninth Circuit, there is a strong presumption in favor of access to public records. 

Upek, Inc. v. Authentec, Inc., No. C 1000424JFPVT, 2010 WL 1980189, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 

17, 2010) (citing Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.

2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

However, this common law right of access is not absolute and can be overridden if there are 

compelling reasons for doing so. (Id.) (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135).

In this regard

Rule 26(c)(G) states that “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to 

protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue 

burden or expense, including [inter alia] requiring that a trade secret or other 

confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or 

be revealed only in a specified way.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(G). In the order, 

however, the court must “identify and discuss the factors it considered in its „good 

cause‟ examination to allow appellate review of the exercise of its discretion.”

Foltz [331 F.3d at 1130.] “A party asserting good cause bears the burden, for each 

particular document it seeks to protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm 

will result i[f] no protective order is granted.” Id.

Upek, Inc., 2010 WL 1980189, at *3. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) confers “broad 

discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of 

protection is required.” Kelley v. Euromarkiet Designs, Inc., No. CIVS070232RRBEFB, 2008 

WL 223718, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2008) (citing Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 

36 (1984)). 

The Court finds that Respondent‟s stipulated request for a protective order is supported 

by Rule 26 “good cause” and shall be granted as provided below. See Local Rule 141.1(b)(1). 

In the Ninth Circuit

In the case of trade secrets, the moving party must show (1) that the information is 

a “trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial 

information,” under Rule 26(c)[(G]; and (2) that its disclosure would be harmful 

to the party‟s interest in the property. See Centurion Indus., Inc. v. Warren Steurer 

& Assoc., 665 F.2d 323, 325 (10th Cir. 1981) (holding that there is no absolute 

privilege for trade secrets and similar confidential information); see also Foltz

[331 F.3d at 1131] (the party requesting a protective order has the burden to 

demonstrate that (1) the material in question is a trade secret or other confidential 

information and that (2) disclosure would cause an identifiable, significant harm). 

Case 1:97-cv-06210-DAD Document 254 Filed 12/16/15 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Kelley, 2008 WL 223718, at *2. 

The Confidential Materials appear to be proprietary in the Western Institute of Legal 

Medicine. (See ECF No. 252 at 3:6-12.) The Court takes notice that the Western Institute of 

Legal Medicine offers fee based training sessions by its presenters, Drs. Firestone and 

Tennenhouse that the include the Confidential Materials. Western Institute of Legal Medicine, 

http://www.wilm-ed.org (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). These factors reasonably suggest the 

possibility of commercial harm from unprotected disclosure of the Confidential Materials. 

II.

ORDER

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Respondent‟s December 14, 2015 request for a 

stipulated protective order relating to the Confidential Materials (ECF No. 252) is GRANTED 

such that: 

1. The following Confidential Materials from courses presented by the Western 

Institute of Legal Medicine that are to be provided by Dr. Firestone to Petitioner's 

counsel are the intellectual property of the Western Institute of Legal Medicine, 

and shall be deemed to be confidential: 

A. Prescribing Practices and Management of Chronic Pain and 

Substance Use Disorder Supplementary Pre-Course booklet 

- 24 pages; 

B. Prescribing Practices and Management of Chronic Pain and 

Substance Use Disorder Handout - 82 pages;

C. Record Keeping Supplementary Pre-Course booklet - 25 

pages; 

D. Record Keeping Course Handout - 85 pages; 

E. Practical Medical Ethics and Professionalism: and MedicalLegal Implications of Ethics for Practicing Physicians 

Supplementary Pre-Course booklet - 68 pages; 

F. Practical Medical Ethics and Professionalism: and MedicalLegal Implications of Ethics for Practicing Physicians 

Handout - 86 pages. 

Case 1:97-cv-06210-DAD Document 254 Filed 12/16/15 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

2. The above listed Confidential Materials shall only be used by Petitioner's counsel, 

or any expert witness retained by Petitioner's counsel, in this federal habeas 

proceeding and only for purposes of examining Dr. Marvin Firestone. If 

Petitioner's counsel provides the Confidential Materials to any expert as 

authorized above, Petitioner's counsel shall inform that expert of this protective 

order and the expert‟s obligation to comply with it. Disclosure of the contents of 

the Confidential Materials and the Confidential Materials themselves may not be 

made to any other persons or agencies. 

3. Upon termination of this federal habeas proceeding, or upon a determination that 

the Confidential Materials are not relevant, Petitioner's counsel shall return those 

Materials to Dr. Firestone or certify to Respondent‟s counsel and Dr. Firestone 

that they have been destroyed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:97-cv-06210-DAD Document 254 Filed 12/16/15 Page 4 of 4