Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00555/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00555-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

17cv555 BEN (NLS)

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

PACIFIC MARINE PROPELLERS, 

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARTSILA DEFENSE, INC., BRYAN 

RUTTER, BOBBY HENINGER, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 17cv555 BEN (NLS)

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR 

DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE NO. 4

[ECF No. 46]

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery

Dispute No. 4, whereby the parties request the Court’s assistance in determining whether 

Plaintiff’s retained expert, Paul Moore, may be shown documents designated by 

Defendants as “confidential” and/or “attorneys eyes only.” ECF No. 46. Having 

reviewed the briefing submitted and for the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that 

Mr. Moore qualifies as an “independent” expert and may be shown confidential 

documents needed for his testimony, provided that he signs and adheres to the 

“AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY PROTECTIVE ORDER” form in the Protective 

Order entered in this case (ECF No. 33). 

Case 3:17-cv-00555-L-NLS Document 49 Filed 05/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 9
2

17cv555 BEN (NLS)

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

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Pacific Marine Propellers, Inc. (“PMP”) and Defendant Wartsila Defense, 

Inc. (“Wartsila”) both are in the business of repairing marine propellers. ECF No. 19 ¶¶

6, 8. In its Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff presents seven claims related to 

Wartsila’s entry into the San Diego marine propeller repair market and its actions in 

competing for government subcontracts. Relevant to the specific issues presented in the 

instant motion is the following background information. 

A. Paul Moore

On July 31, 2017, PMP identified Mr. Paul Moore in its Initial Disclosures as a 

person who may potentially have knowledge of the underlying facts and events in this 

case. Subsequently on September 19, 2017, PMP changed its position and notified 

Wartsila that:

Mr. Paul Moore, identified in plaintiff’s initial Rule 26 disclosure at Paragraph 

28, appears to have no percipient knowledge relative to matters at issue in this 

case. Consequently, he has been engaged by counsel as a consulting expert 

on behalf of the plaintiff, and will likely later be engaged as a testimonial

expert for trial. Mr. Moore may be contacted through plaintiff’s counsel. 

ECF No. 46 at 2. 

According to Mr. Moore’s CV, he retired from the Navy after 36 years of 

service. ECF No. 46-2 at 2. During this time at the Navy, he was responsible for 

“the life cycle management of all Navy submarine and surface ship propellers, 

shafting and related equipment,” including “[t]echnical authority for all issues 

relating to manufacture, repair and in-service.” Id. He was also an instructor for 

propeller courses for the last 15 years. Id. He is currently employed as a Parttime/On-call Marine Engineer at ECS Federal, LLC, where he “[s]upports the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) Platform 

Acquisition Division in all facets of vessel acquisition from preliminary design 

through vessel delivery,” among other tasks for NOAA. Id. 

//

Case 3:17-cv-00555-L-NLS Document 49 Filed 05/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 9
3

17cv555 BEN (NLS)

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

B. Mr. Moore’s Communications with PMP 

Relevant to this motion, Mr. Moore had a prior relationship with PMP. As 

pertinent background, on January 12, 2015, Derek Bateman from PMP sent a letter

to the Office of the Secretary of the Navy regarding the contract originally awarded 

to PMP and later cancelled and given to Wartsila. ECF No. 46-8. The letter 

accuses Wartsila of not having a Basic Ordering Agreement (“BOA”) to perform 

work in San Diego and not being equipped to perform the work. Id. at 4. The 

letter specifically states that Wartsila applied for a BOA but was rejected. Id. The 

letter also alleges that Wartsila presented a letter signed by a Jeffrey Schumann 

(“Schumann letter”) that qualifies Wartsila to conduct propeller repairs in San 

Diego in connection to the Lake Erie contract, and that this letter is in contradiction 

to the BOA rejection. Id. Mr. Bateman goes onto to call into question the 

appropriateness of the Schumann letter and accuses Wartsila of deception in 

connection with that letter and the contract bids. Mr. Moore’s communications 

with PMP appear to be related to at least some of the issues raised in Mr. 

Bateman’s letter. 

In response to an interrogatory regarding communications with “any person 

concerning Wartsila’s participation in the San Diego propeller repair market,” 

PMP disclosed the following:

Starting in about January 2015, Mr. Bateman had conversations by phone 

about once a month with Mr. Paul Moore, after his retirement, concerning 

Wartsila’s effort to enter the San Diego propeller market. In the course of 

those conversations, Mr. Moore suggested a congressional inquiry 

concerning the status of Wartsila’s San Diego operations as a “NavSea 

Certified Propeller Repair Facility.” They also discussed the range of 

Wartsila bid prices to the extent they were then known and the 

reasonableness of those bids considering the man-hours involved. They also 

discussed the NAVSUP protest and its denial. We have no records from 

which precise dates or times can be ascertained; however it is fair to state 

that the conversations were contemporaneous with the events discussed. Mr. 

King also had several similar conversations with Mr. Moore and several 

email exchanges that began about December 2014 and continued into 2015 

Case 3:17-cv-00555-L-NLS Document 49 Filed 05/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 9
4

17cv555 BEN (NLS)

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

concerning Wartsila and how to address the issues with the protest.

Mr. King has made phone calls and sent email to Mr. Moore, with whom he 

had a long professional working relationship and now sees as a friend in

retirement. Mr. King wrote to Mr. Moore on May 13, 2015, and met with 

him not long after while Mr. Moore was in San Diego for an unrelated 

matter. Mr. King had expressed concerns to Mr. Moore about the technical 

grinding to the edge of propellers being performed by Wartsila and 

identified defects in the repairs that would potentially impair the 

performance of the propeller blades to the detriment of the Navy. He 

provided photographs to Mr. Moore for his opinion and feedback and sought

guidance on how to address the issue of government malfeasance in failing 

to address the deficient performance by Wartsila.” 

ECF NO. 46-10 at 15. 

Documents and deposition testimony also substantiate the relationship. 

Emails produced during discovery between James King and Mr. Moore show that 

Mr. King emailed Mr. Moore about the Schumann letter on December 12, 2014. 

ECF No. 46-9. Mr. Moore responded, giving advice about his interpretation of the 

letter, whether it should have been issued in his opinion, and what he would do to 

deal with the issue. Id.; ECF No. 46-7. Mr. Moore also indicated that he spoke to 

James Schumann regarding the letter. Id. at 46-7 at 7. James King testified about 

this email exchange with Mr. Moore during his deposition. ECF No. 46-6 at 7. 

The emails submitted by the parties on this issue appear to span from December 

12, 2014 to January 15, 2015. ECF No. 46-9. 

C. Protective Order

On November 13, 2017, the Court entered a Protective Order in this case upon the 

parties’ joint motion. ECF No. 33. In relevant part, the Protective Order states:

9. Information designated “CONFIDENTIAL - FOR COUNSEL ONLY”

must be viewed only by counsel (as defined in paragraph 3) of the receiving 

party, and by independent experts under the conditions set forth in this 

Paragraph. The right of any independent expert to receive any Confidential 

Information will be subject to the advance approval of such expert by the 

producing party or by permission of the Court. The party seeking approval of 

an independent expert must provide the producing party with the name and 

Case 3:17-cv-00555-L-NLS Document 49 Filed 05/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 9
5

17cv555 BEN (NLS)

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

curriculum vitae of the proposed independent expert, and an executed copy of 

the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, in advance of providing any 

Confidential Information of the producing party to the expert. Any objection 

by the producing party to an independent expert receiving Confidential 

Information must be made in writing within fourteen (14) days following 

receipt of the identification of the proposed expert. Confidential Information 

may be disclosed to an independent expert if the fourteen (14) day period has 

passed and no objection has been made. The approval of independent experts 

must not be unreasonably withheld.

10. Information designated “CONFIDENTIAL” must be viewed only by 

counsel (as defined in paragraph 3) of the receiving party, by independent 

experts (pursuant to the terms of paragraph 8), and by the additional 

individuals listed below, provided each such individual has read this Order in 

advance of disclosure and has agreed in writing to be bound by its terms: a. 

Executives who are required to participate in policy decisions with reference 

to this action; b. Technical personnel of the parties with whom Counsel for 

the parties find it necessary to consult, in the discretion of such counsel, in 

preparation for trial of this action; and c. Stenographic and clerical employees 

associated with the individuals identified above.

Id. at 9-10. 

D. The Parties Dispute Disclosure of Confidential Information to Paul Moore

Subsequently, PMP sent an email to Wartsila stating that it intended to show Mr. 

Moore various documents that had been marked confidential. ECF No. 46 at 3. Wartsila 

responded by asking for more information regarding Mr. Moore, including his area of 

expertise and relevance to the issues in the case, an updated CV, his current activities for 

PMP, and confirmation he had not already been shown Wartsila’s confidential 

information. Id. at 3-4. On April 2, PMP sent some of the requested information to 

Wartsila. PMP responded that Mr. Moore’s area of expertise was: “Mr. Moore has an 

extensive experiential background and is a subject matter expert on the knowledge, skills 

and abilities necessary to perform propeller repairs to U.S. Navy specifications. That 

expertise extends to having knowledge of the amount of time necessary to perform each 

aspect of a repair and the general amount of time required for each line-item specification 

within an [Request for Quotation].” Id. at 4. Mr. Moore has also agreed to be bound to 

Case 3:17-cv-00555-L-NLS Document 49 Filed 05/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 9
6

17cv555 BEN (NLS)

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

not accept employment with NASSCO, BAE, and PMP for a number of years following 

his testimony. Id. However, the parties continued to dispute whether Mr. Moore should 

be shown Wartsila’s confidential information and were unable to reach a resolution. Id.

at 4-5. 

II. DISCUSSION

Discovery Dispute No. 4 involves whether Mr. Moore can be shown Wartsila’s 

confidential information under the Protective Order. Wartsila primary argument as to 

why Mr. Moore should not be shown these documents is because he is not an 

“independent” expert in light of his role and communications with PMP in challenging 

Wartsila’s entry into the San Diego market. ECF No. 46 at 5. 

In analyzing whether to approve an expert as “independent” under the terms of 

a protective order, courts generally weigh the following factors: (1) the expert’s position 

within the receiving party’s business as an officer, shareholder or employee; (2) the 

extent of the expert’s regular employment or association with the receiving party; (3) the 

expert’s “present involvement in the receiving party’s competitive decisions, including 

participation in or advice related to research;” (4) “the potential for future involvement of 

the expert in the receiving party’s competitive decisions;” and (5) if the expert is not 

deemed independent, whether the expert is willing to “forego future involvement with the 

receiving party.” Ares-Serono, Inc. v. Organon Int’l B.V., 153 F.R.D. 4, 6-7 (D. Mass. 

1993) (quoting Digital Equip. Corp. v. Micro Tech., Inc., 142 F.R.D. 488, 491 (D. Colo. 

1992)); see also Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 250 F.R.D. 426, 433 (D. 

Neb. 2008) (reciting same factors); AG Fur Atherische Ole v. Gucci Am., Inc., No. 

04CIV.280(GBD)(THK), 2006 WL 838996, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2006) (same). 

The burden is on the party opposing disclosure to show why the risk of disclosure of its 

confidential information outweighs the risk of harm to the other party’s ability to 

prosecute its case. Isis Pharm., Inc. v. Santaris Pharma A/S Corp., No. 11cv2214-GPC 

(KSC), 2013 WL 3367575, at *3 (S.D. Cal. July 5, 2013).

The primary concern addressed by these factors centers around the worry that the 

Case 3:17-cv-00555-L-NLS Document 49 Filed 05/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 9
7

17cv555 BEN (NLS)

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

confidential information will be used to harm the party whose confidential information is 

being divulged or to place that party at a competitive disadvantage. Ares-Serono, 153 

F.R.D. at 6 (finding expert independent where “she no longer participates in [plaintiff’s]

competitive decisions); Streck, 250 F.R.D. at 433 (noting that expert’s role was to make 

product compatible with another product “rather than to improve [plaintiff’s] products for 

the general competitive market”); see also Isis Pharm., 2013 WL 3367575, at *3 (“When 

a party is concerned with about the competitive misuse of confidential information and a 

protective order appears to be insufficient protection, the court must balance the risk of 

disclosure to competitors against the risk of damaging the claims or defenses of the party 

seeking access.”) (quoting Santella v. Grizzly Indus., Inc., No. 12mc00131-SI, 2012 WL 

5399970, at *4 (D. Or. Nov. 5, 2012)). In addition, the temporal focus of this inquiry is 

on the present relationship between the expert and the party, not the past relationship. 

Compare Ares-Serono, 153 F.R.D. at 6 (noting that expert is a former employee and 

“[h]er contact with Serono in the future appears tenuous at best”) and Streck, 250 F.R.D. 

at 433 (noting that expert was no longer working with plaintiff’s employees”) with

Digital Equip. Corp, 142 F.R.D. at 492 (expert “has been retained by [defendant] on an 

ongoing basis” and this “continuing nexus to an important aspect of [defendant’s]

business” disqualifies him as serving as an independent expert). 

With these guiding principles in mind, the Court finds that Mr. Moore qualifies as 

an “independent” expert. The emails and testimony establishes that Mr. Moore had a 

relationship with individuals at PMP during the timeframe of late 2014 through early 

2015. As Wartsila argues, this evidence may well be interpreted as showing that Mr. 

Moore aided PMP in challenging Wartsila’s entry into the San Diego propeller repair 

market and may be partisan to PMP.

1

 

 

1 While the Court understands the basis for Wartsila’s concerns, this opinion is limited to whether Mr. 

Moore qualifies as an “independent” expert under the relevant law and does not foreclose Wartsila from 

challenging Mr. Moore’s expert role in other ways, such as in a future Daubert motion or by attacking 

his opinions based on their perceived bias. 

Case 3:17-cv-00555-L-NLS Document 49 Filed 05/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 9
8

17cv555 BEN (NLS)

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

However, the test to determine if an expert is “independent” focuses on the present 

and future involvement of Mr. Moore with PMP. The scope of the relationship as 

evidenced by the testimony and documents occurred about two years prior to the filing of 

this lawsuit, as Wartsila even acknowledges. Wartsila does not present any evidence to 

show that Mr. Moore acts as an officer or employee of PMP currently, has any regular 

association with PMP, or has any role in PMP’s current competitive decisions or may 

have involvement in such decisions in the future. As Mr. Moore’s CV shows, he is 

currently employed on a part-time basis to consult with NOAA’s vessel acquisition. 

Wartsila’s argument that Mr. Moore will use its confidential information to its 

detriment is based on speculation that the past relationship necessarily means a current or 

future relationship. Wartsila expresses concern that its confidential information, 

including bids, bid estimates, and related materials, will be divulged to its competitor 

PMP. However, Wartsila fails to establish that divulging such information to Mr. 

Moore—provided that he has signed the “AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY

PROTECTIVE ORDER” form which exposes him to sanctions for contempt of court—

would result in that the information being divulged to PMP. Moreover, Mr. Moore has 

already agreed that he is willing to forego employment with PMP. Ares-Serono, 153 

F.R.D. at 6 (fifth factor being if the expert is willing to “forego future involvement with 

the receiving party”); Digital Equip. Corp., 142 F.R.D. at 492 (expert can become 

“independent” if he “relinquishes his non-litigation consulting activities for Micro and 

agrees not to perform such non-litigation related consulting work for Micro in the 

future”). 

Wartsila also argues that, regardless of whether Mr. Moore is independent or not, 

he does not need the confidential information to form an opinion regarding the amount of 

time required to perform a repair or task that would appear in a Request for Quotation—

the only specific topics on which PMP has disclosed that Mr. Moore will opine. PMP 

states that the data that it intends to share with Mr. Moore is primarily bids and bid 

estimates and related materials from bids made for propeller work in San Diego during 

Case 3:17-cv-00555-L-NLS Document 49 Filed 05/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 9
9

17cv555 BEN (NLS)

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

the period of 2014-2016. ECF No. 46 at 11. The Court finds it reasonable that an expert 

who may opine on the amount of time required to perform a task related to propeller 

repair may need to see bid or bid estimates in the relevant time frame, from the relevant 

market in San Diego. It would also not be unreasonable that such an expert may also 

opine on the related topic of whether certain bids or bid estimates are reasonable or not. 

And, as the Court discussed above, any potential harm to Wartsila is minimized by Mr. 

Moore signing the agreement to bound and his agreement to not work for PMP in the 

future.2 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Mr. Moore qualifies as an 

“independent” expert and may be shown confidential documents needed for his 

testimony, provided that he signs and adheres to the “AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND 

BY PROTECTIVE ORDER” form. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2018

 

2 The parties also dispute the circumstances under which a party needs to approve of the opposing 

party’s expert before he can be shown confidential information under Paragraph 9 of their Protective 

Order. ECF No. 46 at 5-6, 12-13. In this instance, however, Mr. Moore was already disclosed to 

Wartsila who objected (under the procedure outlined in Paragraph 9) and the Court rules in this motion 

that he qualifies as an “independent” expert. Thus, the Court need not address this specific argument. 

Case 3:17-cv-00555-L-NLS Document 49 Filed 05/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 9