Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01115/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01115-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

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 - 06cv1115

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIGHTON COLLECTIBLES, INC. a

California Corporation,

Civil No. 06cv1115-H(POR)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING IN PART AND

GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR

ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER

[Doc. No. 43]

v.

RENAISSANCE GROUP INTERNATIONAL;

RALPH’S GROCERY COMPANY,

Defendants.

On August 30, 2006, each party filed a Motion for Entry of Protective Order. The Court has

received both motions. Defendants request (1) disclosure of the identities of experts and consultants

prior to viewing confidential information and (2) disclosure of the confidential information that will

be viewed by an expert or consultant. Plaintiff requests that the identities of experts and consultants

and confidential information to be viewed by such experts and consultants not be disclosed. After

careful review of the parties’ motions, the Court hereby DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART

each party’s motion. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. At least ten (10) days prior to disclosure to any expert, consultant or other person as

defined in Paragraph 1(c)(2) of the proposed protective order, notice of the identity of

the expert or consultant shall be given to the party that designated the documents

confidential.

2. The specific identity of confidential information to be disclosed shall not be required. 

Case 3:06-cv-01115-H-POR Document 45 Filed 09/15/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 06cv1115

The Court is cognizant of concerns related to the attorney work product doctrine, and

therefore finds it improper to require disclosure of specific information to be

reviewed by experts and consultants prior to the expert disclosure date.

3. Parties shall provide sufficient information to identify the expert or consultant so that

a determination of whether that expert or consultant has a conflict preventing him or

her from viewing confidential information may be made.

4. If a dispute arises after such disclosure, counsel are to meet and confer in accordance

with Local Rule 26.1(a) regarding all disputed issues before contacting the Court. 

5. In Paragraph 8, the Court directs counsel to the proper designation of titles of

Magistrate Judge and District Judge. Counsel are advised that Magistrate Judges and

District Judges are both judges that serve within the United States District Court. 

Counsel are directed to correct the wording to reflect the proper designation of titles.

6. In Paragraph 10, parties shall include instructions for disposing of documents filed

with the Court under seal at the conclusion of the case. 

7. Parties shall add the following at the end of the protective order: “Without separate

Court order, this protective order and stipulation does not change, amend, or

circumvent any Court rule or Local Rule.”

8. Parties shall modify the proposed protective order in accordance with the Court’s

order and submit the modified order within ten (10) days of receipt of this order.

DATED: September 14, 2006

LOUISA S PORTER

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: District Judge

all parties

Case 3:06-cv-01115-H-POR Document 45 Filed 09/15/06 Page 2 of 2