Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01191/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01191-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1 

14cv1191-JLS(KSC) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CROSS-FIT, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

NATIONAL STRENGTH AND 

CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION, a 

Colorado corporation, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 14cv1191-JLS(KSC) 

ORDER RE RENEWED JOINT 

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION 

OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

(PUBLISHING AGREEMENTS); 

PROTECTIVE ORDER; AND 

ORDER QUASHING, IN PART, 

SUBPOENA SERVED ON THIRD 

PARTY LWW 

[Doc. No. 104.] 

 Before the Court is a Renewed Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery 

Dispute. [Doc. No. 104.] In the Renewed Joint Motion, defendant seeks an order: 

(1) quashing a subpoena plaintiff served on third party Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 

(“LWW”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 which seeks, in part, to obtain 

un-redacted copies of certain publishing agreements; and (2) limiting disclosure of the 

publishing agreements to redacted copies. [Doc. No. 104, at pp. 15-16.] Defendant does 

not object to production of the subject publishing agreements in redacted form subject to 

the joint Protective Order filed in this case on August 16, 2014. [Doc. No. 104, at p. 7, 

Case 3:14-cv-01191-JLS-KSC Document 133 Filed 11/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of

15
2 

14cv1191-JLS(KSC) 

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

citing Doc. No. 12.] Plaintiff seeks an order enforcing the subpoena on LWW and 

compelling production of un-redacted copies of the publishing agreements subject to the 

August 16, 2014 stipulated Protective Order. In addition, plaintiff seeks to recover 

reasonable expenses for participating in bringing the Joint Motion. [Doc. No. 104, at pp. 

24-27.] 

 For the reasons outlined more fully below, the Court finds that plaintiff’s request 

for an order enforcing, in part, the Rule 45 subpoena and compelling LWW to produce 

un-redacted copies of the publishing agreements must be DENIED. The Court also finds 

that defendant’s request for an order quashing, in part, plaintiff’s Rule 45 subpoena 

served on LWW must be GRANTED, to the extent the subpoena seeks un-redacted 

copies of defendant’s publishing agreements with LWW. In addition, the Court finds that 

defendant’s request for a protective order precluding production of un-redacted copies of 

its publishing agreements with LWW must be GRANTED. 

Allegations in the First Amended Complaint

 The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed on February 29, 2016 includes causes 

of action for false advertising, unfair competition, declaratory relief, and trade libel. [Doc. 

No. 71-6, at p. 3.] According to the FAC, plaintiff Cross-Fit, Inc. and defendant National 

Strength and Conditioning Association (“NSCA”) “are competitors in the fitness industry.” 

[Doc. No. 71-6, at p. 3.] The FAC alleges that defendant NSCA and “its long-time peer, 

the American College of Sports Medicine (the ‘ACSM’), are two pillars of this traditional 

fitness establishment.” [Doc. No. 71-6, at p. 4.] Plaintiff, on the other hand, “is a relatively 

new player in the fitness space” with “a radically different approach” to fitness. [Doc. No. 

71-6, at p. 4.] 

 Defendant publishes the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (“JSCR”) 

which has a “large readership.” [Doc. No. 71-6, at pp. 5, 9.] The key allegations in the FAC 

are as follows: “In November 2013, the JSCR published a study by Steven T. Devor (an 

ACSM ‘fellow’), Michael M. Smith, Allan J. Sommer, and Brooke E. Starkoff, entitled 

‘Crossfit-based [sic] high intensity power training improves maximal aerobic fitness and 

Case 3:14-cv-01191-JLS-KSC Document 133 Filed 11/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of

15
3 

14cv1191-JLS(KSC) 

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

body composition’ (the ‘Devor Study’).1

 The Devor Study purported to track a ten-week 

CrossFit program. While the Devor Study correctly found that CrossFit improved the 

athletes’ fitness levels, it also reported that nine of fifty-four participants (16% of the 

sample population) dropped out of the program due to ‘overuse or injury.’ That assertion 

was based on false data.” [Doc. No. 71-6, at p. 5.] 

 More specifically, the FAC alleges that defendant published the following false, 

misleading, and/or deceptive statements about CrossFit’s injury rates in the Devor Study: 

(1) “[N]ine subjects (16% of total recruited subjects) cit[ed] overuse or injury for failing to 

complete the [CrossFit] program and finish follow up testing;” and (2) “[T]here are 

emerging reports of increased rates of musculoskeletal and metabolic injury in these 

programs [including CrossFit].” [Doc. No. 71-6, at pp. 18-19.] 

 According to the FAC, it is simply not true that nine participants dropped out of the 

program because of overuse or injury. [Doc. No. 71-6, at p. 3, 5.] In addition, plaintiff 

believes that the false data and information in the Devor Study was “contrived” not only to 

dissuade people from using CrossFit as a form of exercise but also to dissuade trainers from 

seeking certification as CrossFit trainers. [Doc. No. 1, at pp. 5-6.] Plaintiff confronted 

defendant with facts indicating study participants did not drop out of the program because 

of overuse or injury, but defendant “failed to retract the false Devor Study.” [Doc. No. 71-

6, at p. 14-15.] 

 New allegations in the FAC are that defendant published and distributed an 

“Erratum” related to the Devor Article that included two additional false, misleading, and 

harmful statements. [Doc. No. 71-1, at p. 2; 71-6, at pp. 17-18.] The first challenged 

statement in the Erratum is that “‘the injury rate should not be considered a factor in this 

[S]tudy. This change does not affect the overall conclusion of the article.’” [Doc. No. 71-

6, at p. 17.] The FAC alleges that it was not appropriate for defendant to stand behind the 

                                                                

1

 The Devor Study is sometimes referred to as the “Devor Article,” the “published 

article,” and the “Study.”

Case 3:14-cv-01191-JLS-KSC Document 133 Filed 11/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of

15
4 

14cv1191-JLS(KSC) 

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

“overall conclusion” of the Devor Study knowing it included false and/or misleading 

information. [Doc. No. 71-6, at p. 18.] The second challenged statement in the Erratum is 

that “‘[a]fter the article was published, 10 of the 11 participants who did not complete the 

study have provided their reasons for not finishing, with only 2 mentioning injury or health 

conditions that prevented them from completing follow-up testing.’” [Doc. No. 71-6, at p. 

17.] The FAC alleges that “[i]n reality, the two Study participants that ‘mention[ed] injury 

or health conditions’ explicitly clarified that their injury or health conditions stemmed from 

activities outside of the Devor Study.” [Doc. No. 71-6, at p. 18.] 

Relevant Procedural History

 On August 20, 2014, the Court entered a stipulated Protective Order governing the 

exchange of documents during the litigation that might contain “trade secret or other 

confidential research, technical, cost, price, marketing or other confidential research, 

technical, cost, price, marketing or other commercial information, as contemplated by 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G).” [Doc. No. 14, at p. 1.] Under the 

Protective Order, a disclosing party may designate and mark documents or information as 

“confidential” or “confidential – for counsel only” if the party has a good faith belief that 

unrestricted disclosure could be harmful or prejudicial. [Doc. No. 14, at p. 3.] Any such 

documents are then entitled to special treatment and can only be disclosed to persons 

designated in the Protective Order. [Doc. No. 14, at pp. 4-6.] Use of any documents or 

information marked as “confidential” or “confidential – for counsel only” can only be 

used for purposes of this action. [Doc. No. 14, at p. 6.] In addition, the parties must 

“take reasonable precautions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of 

such information” and must not seek to file any such documents with the Court without a 

motion to file the documents under seal. [Doc. No. 14, at pp. 6-7.] 

 The parties refer to the instant Joint Motion as “Renewed,” because the Court 

previously addressed the same issues in a prior Joint Motion. [Doc. Nos. 70, 89.] Based 

on the briefing submitted by the parties in the prior Joint Motion, the Court was unable to 

determine whether a protective order prohibiting production of un-redacted copies of the 

Case 3:14-cv-01191-JLS-KSC Document 133 Filed 11/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of

15
5 

14cv1191-JLS(KSC) 

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

publishing agreements was really warranted or whether plaintiff was entitled to an order 

compelling production of the un-redacted copies of the publishing agreements. [Doc. No. 

189, at p. 5.] As a result, the Court denied both parties’ requests in the Joint Motion 

without prejudice and allowed the parties additional time to meet and confer and re-brief 

the issues. [Doc. No. 89, at p. 7.] 

 Although the parties filed their “renewed” Joint Motion, they did not satisfy the 

meet and confer requirements. Local Civil Rule 26.1(a) requires the parties to meet and 

confer in person if they are located in the same county and by telephone if they are 

located in different counties. CivLR 26.1(a). According to the Declaration of Brandon 

Braga, the parties merely exchanged e-mails about this issue before filing their 

“renewed” Joint Motion. [Doc. No. 104-11, at p. 3, citing Exhibit F.] Ordinarily, the 

Court would reject the parties’ Joint Motion for failure to satisfy the meet and confer 

requirements. However, the Court will resolve the parties’ “renewed” Joint Motion at 

this time for the sake of judicial efficiency. Discovery has been closed for some time 

now and the parties are headed for trial. Requiring the parties to meet and confer and refile their “renewed” Joint Motion would only serve to further delay the case. Counsel 

are advised that any future motions will be rejected if they fail to satisfy the meet and 

confer requirements. 

Discussion

 The parties’ discovery dispute arises from a Rule 45 subpoena served by plaintiff 

on third party LWW seeking: “All documents and communications concerning any 

partnerships, affiliations (whether formal or informal), or other relationships between 

[LWW] and [defendant], the JSCR, and/or ACSM.” [Doc. No. 104, at p. 6.] In response 

to plaintiff’s subpoena, LWW produced redacted versions of its publishing agreements 

with defendant. When plaintiff later demanded that LWW produce un-redacted copies of 

the publishing agreements, defendant objected, and the matter remains in dispute. [Doc. 

Nos. 104, at p. 6; 89, 70.] 

/ / / 

Case 3:14-cv-01191-JLS-KSC Document 133 Filed 11/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of

15
6 

14cv1191-JLS(KSC) 

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

 Defendant argues that disclosure of the publishing agreements in un-redacted form 

would reveal irrelevant, sensitive, confidential, private financial information that 

defendant considers to be a trade secret.2

 [Doc. No. 104, at p. 7-8; Doc. No. 104-20, at p. 

2.] Because of the nature of the information in the un-redacted portions of the publishing 

agreements, defendant believes that the August 20, 2014 Protective Order does not 

provide sufficient protection against inadvertent disclosure that would be harmful to 

defendant’s business. [Doc. No. 104, at p. 7.] Defendant argues that it justifiably has 

“strong concerns” about the risk of inadvertent disclosure of the confidential information 

in its publishing agreements even under the August 20, 2014 Protective Order, because 

plaintiff has already made an “inadvertent” filing with the Court of confidential, unredacted documents that had to be withdrawn from the public record. [Doc. No. 104, at 

p. 8, citing Doc. No. 86, Notice of Withdrawal of Doc. No. 82.] 

 Plaintiff argues that un-redacted copies of the publishing agreements are 

discoverable because they are relevant to the calculation of plaintiff’s alleged damages. 

Based on its false advertising claim under the Lanham Act and its unfair business 

practices claim, plaintiff’s theory of damages is disgorgement of defendant’s profits 

stemming from the Devor Study. [Doc. No. 104, at pp. 20-21.] 

                                                                

2

 In support of this argument, defendant refers to “this Court’s prior ruling that 

[defendant’s] financial business projections were confidential and subject to a right of 

privacy, and that disclosure of the same was not relevant to [plaintiff’s] case. [Doc. No. 

58.]” [Doc. No. 104, at p. 7. See also Doc. No. 104, at p. 13 (stating plaintiff “cannot 

show relevance . . . , as this Court already held when considering a similar motion. [Doc. 

No. 58.]”); Doc. No. 104, at p. 11 (asserting that “this Court has already noted that 

[defendant’s] annual revenue from its certifications, licensing and education programs, as 

well as its business plans and revenue projections, are confidential and subject to a right 

of privacy, and that disclosure of the same was not relevant to [plaintiff’s] case. [Doc. 

No. 58)”.] The Court will not rehash the matter here but notes that defendant reads too 

much into the cited “prior ruling.” [See Doc. No. 58, at pp. 6-10.] The Court also notes 

that the cited “prior ruling” [Doc. No. 58] is not relevant to the matters at issue in the 

instant Joint Motion.

Case 3:14-cv-01191-JLS-KSC Document 133 Filed 11/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of

15
7 

14cv1191-JLS(KSC) 

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

 Plaintiff also argues that un-redacted copies of the publishing agreements and 

“underlying financial records” are discoverable because they show defendant had a 

financial motive for unfair competition against plaintiff. [Doc. No. 104, at pp. 19-24.] 

According to plaintiff, the royalty information is “additional evidence” corroborating 

defendant’s financial motive for unfair competition. As a result, plaintiff argues that it 

will be “handicapped from meaningfully assessing whether and to what extent there was 

a financial incentive for [defendant] to publish the false injury data and refuse to correct 

the false injury data for over two years while its Journal sales soared without access to the 

profits [defendant] enjoyed from those sales.” [Doc. No. 104, at p. 22.] 

 Plaintiff further asserts that LWW “is in possession of an unknown quantity of 

financial records relating to revenues and royalties generated from the Journal” and that 

LWW’s “own data illustrating the popularity of the Journal edition containing the Devor 

Study strongly suggests [defendant] enjoyed additional profits based on the false 

information in the Devor Study.” [Doc. No. 104, at p. 27.] 

 Based on the arguments presented in the Joint Motion, it appears that plaintiff is 

attempting to expand the scope of the parties’ discovery dispute from the disclosure of 

un-redacted copies of the publishing agreements to also include other financial records 

and/or data kept by LWW related to royalties. To the extent plaintiff is attempting to do 

so, it is too late.3

 Fact discovery in the case has been closed for some time now [Doc. 

No. 65, at pp. 1-2], and the only issue being considered by the Court in connection with 

the parties’ current Joint Motion is whether LWW must disclose un-redacted copies of its 

royalty agreements with defendant in response to plaintiff’s Rule 45 subpoena. [See

                                                                

3

 Order Granting Joint Motion to Extend the Deadline for Completing Fact 

Discovery, Doc. No. 65, at pp. 1-2 (extending the fact discovery deadline to 

November 30, 2015 solely for the purpose of deposing third party witnesses, including 

LWW); Chambers’ Rule V(A) (stating that “discovery motions shall be filed no later than 

45 days after the event giving rise to the dispute . . . .” and “[f]or written discovery, the 

event giving rise to the dispute is the service of an objection, answer, or response. . . .”)

Case 3:14-cv-01191-JLS-KSC Document 133 Filed 11/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of

15
8 

14cv1191-JLS(KSC) 

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

Order re Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute, Doc. No. 89, at pp. 1-7 

(denying defendant’s request for a protective order and plaintiff’s request for an order 

compelling production of un-redacted copies of the publishing agreements and allowing 

the parties to re-brief the issue within 20 days).] 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), as amended, provides in part as follows: 

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any 

party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the 

importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ 

relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the 

discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). “The court may, for good 

cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, 

oppression, or undue burden or expense, . . . including . . . (A) forbidding the disclosure 

or discovery; . . . (D) forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of 

disclosure or discovery to certain matters; . . . (G) requiring that a trade secret or other 

confidential . . . or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a 

specified way. . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1). 

 As noted in prior Orders [Doc. No. 60, at pp. 4-8; Doc. No. 89, at p. 5], “[a] party 

asserting good cause [for a protective order] bears the burden, for each particular 

document it seeks to protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no 

protective order is granted. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 

1130-1131 (2003). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or 

articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” Beckman v. International, 966 

F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992), quoting Cipollone v. Liggett 11 Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 

1121 (3d Cir. 1986). When considering whether a protective order is appropriate, the 

Ninth Circuit has also indicated that the Court must balance conflicting interests, such as 

the risk of inadvertent disclosure of trade secrets to competitors against the risk that 

protection of a trade secret or confidential information would impair the ability of the 

Case 3:14-cv-01191-JLS-KSC Document 133 Filed 11/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of

15
9 

14cv1191-JLS(KSC) 

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

party seeking disclosure to prosecute or defend its claims. Brown Bag Software v. 

Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1992). 

 Under Federal Rule 45(d)(3), the Court “must quash or modify a subpoena 

that: . . . (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or 

waiver applies. . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iii) (emphasis added). In addition, the 

Court may quash or modify a Rule 45 subpoena “if it requires: (i) disclosing a trade 

secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information. . . .” 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(3)(B)(i). The Court may order production of trade secret or 

confidential information “under specific conditions if the serving party: (i) shows a 

substantial need for the . . . material that cannot be otherwise met without undue 

hardship. . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(3)(C). 

 Here, the redacted portions of the publishing agreements in dispute reveal the 

royalty rates defendant has negotiated with LWW for publishing services in connection 

with the JSCR, where the disputed article was published, and for a separate journal, the 

Strength and Conditioning Journal (“SCJ”), which does not appear to have any 

connection to this lawsuit. The royalty rates “are paid together for both the JSCR and the 

SCJ.” [Doc. No. 104-20, at p. 2.] 

 In support of its request for a protective order, defendant submitted the Declaration 

of Keith Cinea, who has worked for defendant since 1999. Mr. Cinea’s current title is 

Publications and Education Director. Previously, he held two other titles while working 

for defendant: (1) Educational Programs and Products Coordinator; and (2) Director of 

Publications and Communications. [Doc. No. 104-20, at p. 2.] Through his work, 

Mr. Cinea is familiar with defendant’s “negotiated payment and royalty rates with 

[LWW].” [Doc. No. 104-20, at p. 2.] 

 In his Declaration, Mr. Cinea outlines defendant’s position concerning the 

sensitive, confidential nature of the information redacted from the royalty agreements: 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:14-cv-01191-JLS-KSC Document 133 Filed 11/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of

15
10 

14cv1191-JLS(KSC) 

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. Some of [defendant’s] competitors, including but not limited to 

the American College of Sports Medicine (“ACSM”), also publish journals 

through LWW. 

 5. [Defendant] has obtained a competitive advantage through 

negotiating favorable combined payment and royalty rates with LWW for 

publishing the JSCR and the SCJ. The NSCA considers this information a 

trade secret. 

 6. [Defendant] is strongly concerned that disclosure of the 

redacted financial information in the LWW agreements, even if disclosed 

under the Joint Protective Order in this case, will result in inadvertent 

disclosure of the redacted financial information to [defendant’s] competitors. 

 7. [Defendant] is further concerned that inadvertent disclosure of 

the redacted financial information to its competitors will result in a loss of its 

competitive advantage, ultimately leading to higher combined payments to 

LWW and lower combined royalty rates from LWW for the JSCR and SCJ. 

[Doc. No. 104-20, at p. 2.] 

 In sum, Mr. Cinea’s Declaration sets forth a plausible explanation as to why 

defendant seeks to protect the confidentiality of the information redacted from the royalty 

agreements. Mr. Cinea’s Declaration also identifies specific prejudice or harm that 

would result if the confidentiality of the redacted information is not protected from 

competitors. Accordingly, the Court must balance the competing interests of the parties 

to determine whether defendant is entitled to protection of the redacted information over 

and above that already provided in the stipulated Protective Order filed on August 16, 

2014. 

 Defendant argues that the August 16, 2014 Protective Order does not provide 

sufficient protection against inadvertent disclosure of the sensitive, confidential 

information it has redacted from the publishing agreements. [Doc. No. 104-20, at p. 2.] 

As evidence of the risk of inadvertent disclosure, defendant refers the Court to a filing 

error that occurred on or about May 5, 2016. On May 5, 2016, plaintiff’s counsel filed 

two redacted copies of a document entitled “Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery 

Case 3:14-cv-01191-JLS-KSC Document 133 Filed 11/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

15
11 

14cv1191-JLS(KSC) 

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

Dispute [Peer Reviewer Identities]” 4 and numerous exhibits, totaling 670 pages (the 

“Peer Review Motion”). [Doc. No. 82.] Since some of the exhibits referenced in the 

Peer Review Motion had been designated and marked “confidential,” plaintiff’s counsel 

also made a separate filing on May 5, 2016, which included an un-redacted copy of the 

Peer Review Motion and the confidential exhibits (136 pages). [Doc. No. 83.] Contrary 

to the August 20, 2014 Protective Order and established procedure, plaintiff’s counsel did 

not file a motion on May 5, 2016 requesting to file the confidential, un-redacted Peer 

Review Motion and the confidential exhibits under seal.5

 [See Doc. Nos. 82 and 83.] As 

a result, defendant understandably believes that the un-redacted, confidential version of 

the Peer Review Motion and the confidential exhibits were available in the public record 

as of May 5, 2016. [Doc. No. 104, at p. 12.] 

 In an e-mail dated May 6, 2016, plaintiff’s counsel notified defense counsel that: 

(1) a Joint Motion involving the submission of confidential documents had been misfiled; 

(2) someone in the office of plaintiff’s counsel had spoken with “the clerk;” and (3) the 

misfiled document was being re-filed “shortly.” [Doc. No. 104-21, at p. 1.] A Notice of 

Withdrawal filed on May 6, 2016 indicates that Docket No. 82 (i.e., the non-confidential, 

redacted copy of the Peer Review Motion and the non-confidential exhibits) were 

withdrawn. However, the confidential, un-redacted copy of the Peer Review Motion and 

the confidential exhibits were not withdrawn (i.e., Doc. No. 83). [Doc. No. 86, at pp. 1-

2.] To correct its failure to file a motion to file confidential documents under seal, 

plaintiff’s counsel made a second filing on May 6, 2016, which included: (1) an 

/ / / 

                                                                

4

 This Joint Motion shows redactions on some pages because it refers to documents 

designated “confidential.”

5

 The Court has been advised by the Clerk’s Office that plaintiff’s filing of the Peer 

Review Motion should have resulted in three separate docket entries on May 5, 2016 in 

the following order: (1) a non-confidential, redacted copy of the discovery motion and 

the non-confidential exhibits; (2) a motion or application to file documents under seal; 

and (3) the un-redacted, confidential version of the motion and the confidential exhibits. 

Case 3:14-cv-01191-JLS-KSC Document 133 Filed 11/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

15
12 

14cv1191-JLS(KSC) 

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

Application to File Materials Under Seal; (2) another non-confidential, redacted copy of 

the Peer Review Motion; and (3) the non-confidential exhibits (629 pages). 

 The Court has reviewed the relevant docket entries for May 5 and 6, 2016 and has 

spoken with the Clerk’s office. The Court has been advised by the Clerk’s Office that no 

un-redacted, confidential documents were available in the public record at any time in 

connection with plaintiff’s filings of the Peer Review Motion on May 5 and 6, 2016. 

[Doc. No. 82.] On the other hand, the above-described filing errors did occur. Under the 

circumstances, it was understandable that defense counsel believed confidential 

documents were accessible to the public as a result of the filing errors. 

 Although no confidential documents were accessible by the public in connection 

with plaintiff’s filings on May 5 and 6, 2016, the errors are enough to raise some 

concerns about the potential for inadvertent disclosure of confidential documents. The 

parties have filed a total of eight Joint Motions seeking the Court’s intervention in 

resolving discovery disputes. Each of these Joint Motions and accompanying exhibits 

have been voluminous (120 to 1,435 pages). Several of these Joint Motions have 

involved the filing of confidential documents with a corresponding motion to file the 

confidential documents under seal. Summary judgment motions have also been filed 

with confidential documents and a corresponding motion to file documents under seal. 

 It stands to reason that the risk of filing errors resulting in the inadvertent 

disclosure of confidential documents in the public record increases whenever the parties 

are submitting a large volume of electronic filings that are voluminous and complex and 

that include a significant number of confidential documents attached as exhibits. The 

misfiling incident on May 5 and 6, 2016 could easily have resulted in the disclosure of 

confidential documents in the public record. In addition, the Court recalls that plaintiff 

previously initiated a Joint Motion requesting an order striking certain “confidential” 

designations by defendant so that it could file confidential documents in the public record 

and use them to publicly discredit defendant in the media. In this regard, the Court 

denied plaintiff’s request. [Doc. Nos. 60, 51, 49.] 

Case 3:14-cv-01191-JLS-KSC Document 133 Filed 11/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

15
13 

14cv1191-JLS(KSC) 

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

 Given all the facts and circumstances, this Court cannot conclude that defendant’s 

concern about the potential for inadvertent disclosure of its confidential documents in the 

public record is groundless. Nor could the Court presume that the August 16, 2014 

Protective Order is sufficient to mitigate defendant’s concern about the possibility of 

inadvertent disclosure of documents that could result in significant adverse financial 

consequences. 

 Plaintiff has not argued convincingly that it has a “substantial need” for unredacted copies of the publishing agreements that outweighs defendant’s interest in 

maintaining the confidentiality of its financial arrangements with LWW. Nor does it 

appear that plaintiff would be prejudiced in its ability to prosecute its case against 

defendant if it does not obtain un-redacted copies of the publishing agreements. 

 As noted above, plaintiff seeks access to un-redacted copies of the publishing 

agreements for two reasons. First, plaintiff believes that the redacted portions of the 

publishing agreements are relevant to its calculation of its alleged damages based on a 

theory of disgorgement of profits stemming from the Devor Study. [Doc. No. 104, at pp. 

20-21.] As noted above, it appears undisputed that the redacted portions of the 

publishing agreements show the royalty rates defendant has negotiated with LWW for 

publishing services in connection with the JSCR, where the disputed article was 

published, and for the SCJ, a separate journal. The royalty rates are paid together for 

both the JSCR and the SCJ. [Doc. No. 104-20, at p. 2.] 

 The Court acknowledges the possibility that the redacted royalty information may 

have some tangential relevance to the issue of damages. However, that is not enough 

given the evidence submitted by defendant indicating it has a strong interest in 

maintaining the confidentiality of the redacted royalty information. Without more, it 

does not appear that the redacted royalty information would be necessary to calculate 

profits stemming from the Devor Study. In other words, it appears that plaintiff’s request 

for access to the redacted royalty information exceeds the scope of information necessary 

to calculate the type of damages plaintiff is seeking. The royalty rates redacted from the 

Case 3:14-cv-01191-JLS-KSC Document 133 Filed 11/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

15
14 

14cv1191-JLS(KSC) 

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

publishing agreements would not show information such as defendant’s gross revenues 

from actual sales of the JSCR during the relevant time period; the number of actual sales 

of the JSCR during the relevant time period less costs; or any increase in actual sales of 

the JSCR after the Devor Study was published. In narrowly tailored written discovery 

requests or during Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, plaintiff should have already obtained the 

data and other information typically used to calculate any alleged damages based on a 

disgorgement of profits theory. In sum, based on the limited information presented, the 

Court is unable to discern any reason why plaintiff would have a substantial need to 

invade the confidential, private financial arrangements between defendant and LWW that 

would be revealed in un-redacted copies of the subject publishing agreements in order to 

calculate its alleged damages. 

 Second, plaintiff believes that un-redacted copies of the publishing agreements are 

relevant to show defendant’s alleged financial motive to engage in unfair competition. 

However, it is apparent based on the arguments presented in the Joint Motion that 

plaintiff only seeks access to the private, confidential royalty information as “additional 

evidence” to corroborate other evidence it has already obtained to use in proving its 

theory that defendant had a financial incentive to engage in unfair competition. [Doc. 

No. 104, at p. 22.] Defendant’s desire for additional corroborating evidence of motive 

must be balanced against defendant’s strong interest in maintaining the confidentiality of 

the royalty payments it has negotiated with its publisher, LWW, which is not a party to 

the action. [Doc. No. 104-20, at p. 2.] Based on the arguments and information 

presented, it is this Court’s view that the burden to defendant of having un-redacted 

copies of the publishing agreements disclosed in this litigation exceeds any likely benefit 

to plaintiff in prosecuting its case against defendant. 

 In sum, defendant submitted enough evidence to establish a strong interest in 

maintaining the confidentiality of the royalty information redacted from the publishing 

agreements. Defendant also made some showing as to why it does not believe the 

August 16, 2014 Protective Order is enough to protect the confidentiality of this 

Case 3:14-cv-01191-JLS-KSC Document 133 Filed 11/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

15
15 

14cv1191-JLS(KSC) 

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

information. Plaintiff did not show a substantial need for the redacted information that 

would outweigh defendant’s strong interest in maintaining the confidentiality of its 

royalty arrangements with third party LWW. 

Conclusion

 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request for an order requiring production of un-redacted copies of 

defendant’s publishing agreements with LWW is DENIED; 

 2. Plaintiff’s Rule 45 subpoena served on served on third party Lippincott 

Williams & Wilkins (“LWW”) is QUASHED to the extent it seeks un-redacted copies of 

plaintiff’s publishing agreements with LWW; 

 3. Defendant’s request for a protective order precluding disclosure of unredacted copies of its publishing agreements with LWW is GRANTED; and 

 4. Plaintiff’s request to recover reasonable expenses for participating in 

bringing the instant Joint Motion is DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 7, 2016 

Case 3:14-cv-01191-JLS-KSC Document 133 Filed 11/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of

15