Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04144/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04144-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

ORDER – No. 19-cv-04144-LB

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

CHEVRON MINING INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SKANSKA USA CIVIL WEST ROCKY 

MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-04144-LB

ORDER DENYING TETRA TECH’S 

EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY 

ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER 

DIRECTING PRODUCTION OF 

SKANSKA/TETRA TECH 

ARBITRATION RECORDS

Re: ECF No. 39

The court assumes the reader’s familiarity with the subject matter and procedural history of 

this case. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs (collectively, “Chevron”) sought expedited discovery and an 

order directing defendant Skanska USA Civil West Rocky Mountain District, Inc. to produce 

transcripts of deposition and hearing testimony in connection with an arbitration between Skanska 

and Tetra Tech EC, Inc., as well as any related settlement (the transcripts and settlement 

collectively, the “Arbitration Materials”).1 The court ordered that Chevron could take expedited 

discovery and ordered Skanska to produce the Arbitration Materials by September 13, 2019 at 

 

1 Pls. Mot. for Prelim. Injunction or Expedited Discovery – ECF No. 7 at 5. Citations refer to material 

in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the 

top of documents.

Case 3:19-cv-04144-LB Document 42 Filed 09/13/19 Page 1 of 3
ORDER – No. 19-cv-04144-LB 2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

noon.

2 Tetra Tech now moves for a stay to the order directing Skanska to produce the Arbitration 

Records.3 That motion is denied for the reasons below.

“A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result.” Nken v. 

Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009). “It is instead ‘an exercise of judicial discretion,’ and ‘[t]he 

propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.’” Id. In 

determining whether to issue a stay pending an interlocutory appeal, courts must consider:

(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to 

succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a 

stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties 

interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.

Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). “The party requesting a stay bears the burden of 

showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 433–34.

“The first two factors . . . are the most critical,” and the last two steps are reached “[o]nce an 

applicant satisfies the first two factors.” Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1164 (9th Cir.

2017) (citing Nken, 556 U.S. at 434–35).

First, Tetra Tech has not made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits. Tetra 

Tech argues that it entered into a confidentiality clause with Skanska to keep the settlement 

confidential from Chevron. But the fact that Tetra Tech and Skanska might have decided amongst 

themselves to enter into a confidentiality agreement does not bar the settlement from being 

discoverable under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a litigation where Skanska is a 

defendant. Cf. Valley Surgical Ctr. LLC v. Cty. of Los Angeles, No. CV 13-02265 DDP (AGRx), 

2018 WL 2189458, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2018) (“[C]onfidentiality agreements do not bar 

discovery, and a general interest in protecting confidentiality does not equate to privilege.”) (citing 

cases).4 As the court previously held, the Arbitration Materials are relevant to Chevron’s claims in 

 

2 Order – ECF No. 32; Order – ECF No. 38.

3 Tetra Tech Mot. to Stay – ECF No. 39.

4 Tetra Tech’s and Skanska’s agreement itself contemplates that the parties might have to produce the 

agreement notwithstanding the confidentiality provision. See Tetra Tech/Skanska Settlement 

Agreement (redacted) – ECF No. 39-1 at 7 (“The Parties shall keep confidential, unless ordered to 

Case 3:19-cv-04144-LB Document 42 Filed 09/13/19 Page 2 of 3
ORDER – No. 19-cv-04144-LB 3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

this suit and are discoverable, and Tetra Tech has not made a strong showing that it is likely to 

succeed either on the merits of its intervention motion or, even if it were to intervene, on the 

merits of its attempts to block discovery of the Arbitration Materials. This factor weighs in favor 

of denying the stay.

Second, Tetra Tech has not shown it will be irreparably harmed by the production of the 

Arbitration Materials. Beyond stating as a conclusion that production of the Arbitration Materials 

will irreparably injure its interests in the underlying arbitration, Tetra Tech has not demonstrated 

how it will suffer irreparable injury. Tetra Tech argues that “the information contained in the 

requested documents will provide Chevron with litigation strategy,”5but it does not explain how it 

will suffer irreparable injury, particularly given that the arbitration panel in the Chevron/Tetra 

Tech arbitration envisioned that Chevron might be able to obtain the Arbitration Materials through 

civil discovery.6 This factor weighs in favor of denying the stay.

Accordingly, the court denies Tetra Tech’s motion for a stay.7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2019

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

 

produce, testimony, transcripts, exhibits, or other documents arising from the Arbitration, including 

the Award (‘Confidential Information’).”) (emphasis added).

5

Id. at 5.

6 Arbitration Panel Order on Mots. to Compel – ECF No. 20-1 at 69 (“As a threshold issue, the Panel 

does not see this clause between Tetra Tech and Skanska being a bar to civil discovery of those 

materials in a civil action. Further, this clause would not necessarily result in the Skanska arbitration 

proceeding being ‘confidential’ as to Chevron . . . .”).

7 Because Tetra Tech has not satisfied the first two stay factors, it is not necessary to address the 

remaining factors. Cf. In re Pac. Fertility Ctr. Litig., No. 18-cv-01586-JSC, 2019 WL 2635539, at *5 

(N.D. Cal. June 27, 2019) (“The first two factors in the traditional stay test are the most important. 

Indeed, a court need not consider the remaining factors unless it concludes that the moving party has 

made an adequate showing on the first two.”) (citing Nken, 556 U.S. at 435; Mount Graham Coalition 

v. Thomas, 89 F.3d 554, 558 (9th Cir. 1996)).

Case 3:19-cv-04144-LB Document 42 Filed 09/13/19 Page 3 of 3