Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01199/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01199-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act (Definitions)

---

1 

15cv1199 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 

Madison-Rae Jordan, individually and as 

next friend of D.M., a minor, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

United States of America, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 15cv1199 BEN (NLS) 

ORDER REGARDING JOINT 

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION 

OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE NO. 1, 

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 

ORDER [Dkt. No. 48] 

 Plaintiff Madison-Rae Jordan filed this case individually and also as next friend of 

her son D.M., a minor (Plaintiff). She alleges a medical malpractice case against 

defendant United States of America based on the negligence of physicians at the Naval 

Hospital Camp Pendleton and the Naval Medical Center San Diego. In this discovery 

dispute the parties present a narrow issue for determination: whether a protective order 

should issue regarding the electronic Excel file of the USA’s economic expert’s report 

regarding the present value of future damages. 

For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for protective 

order of the Excel file. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:15-cv-01199-BEN-NLS Document 50 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2 

15cv1199 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

Relevant Background. 

 Plaintiff deposed Defendant’s economic expert, Heather Xitco, a forensic 

accountant and owner of Dolan Xitco Consulting Group. Xitco Decl. ¶ 1. Ms. Xitco 

used an Excel spreadsheet to formulate and determine the present value loss figures in 

this case. Xitco Decl. ¶ 3. During her deposition Ms. Xitco explained that she 

determined the present value of various components of the parties’ life care plans by 

using the present value formula function in Excel. Jt. Mtn., p.2. Then she input the cost 

of the item, the time frame the item required, and the net discount rate. Id. 

 The parties agree that Defendant will produce the electronic Excel file after certain 

metadata is removed. Defendant seeks a protective order over only the electronic file, 

based on its expert’s belief that the electronic file contains proprietary components. 

Specifically, Ms. Xitco asserts that the “unique attributes [of the report]...were created 

solely for my firms [sic] benefit and ...brand: font style, font size, print layout, 

formatting, schedule organization, schedule linking.” Xitco Decl. ¶ 4. She believes that 

producing an electronic copy of this information could cause economic harm to her 

business because “[p]roviding the information would allow a competitor to copy our 

‘brand’ and would be detrimental to our practice.” Xitco Decl. ¶ 5. 

There is no dispute that a hard copy of the file or a hard copy of the list of formulas 

used for the calculations can be publicly available and not subject to a protective order. 

See Ex. 3. The only issue for the court to decide is whether the public—whether it be a 

reporter or future or collateral litigants—has a right to an electronic copy of the expert’s 

Excel file. To answer that question, the court must determine that either Plaintiff or her 

counsel has standing to assert that right on behalf of the public, and that a hard copy of 

the Excel file is insufficient to satisfy any right that may exist. 

Discussion. 

1. Legal Standard Regarding Protective Orders. 

A court may issue a protective order “requiring that a trade secret or other 

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

Case 3:15-cv-01199-BEN-NLS Document 50 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3 

15cv1199 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

revealed only in a specified way[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The burden of proof for 

a protective order is on the moving party to make a clear showing of particular and 

specific need for the protective order. See Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 

429 (9th Cir. 1975).1

 Here, Defendant asserts that its expert’s Excel file contains unique 

attributes that comprise part of her company’s brand, and that the concern is a competitor 

could easily copy the Excel file and the brand, which would cause economic harm to her 

business. See Xitco Declaration. 

The court finds that this is an adequate assertion of a trade secret or other 

confidential research, development, or commercial information for the purpose of 

discovery. Absent one of Plaintiff’s competing concerns addressed below, the electronic 

file should be produced subject to a protective order. 

2. Access to Judicial Records. 

Plaintiff argues that the presumption of a public right to access and inspect judicial 

records is paramount here. In support, she cites to a Ninth Circuit case that says the 

“right is justified by the interest of citizens in keeping a watchful eye on the workings of 

public agencies.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th 

Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted). The case goes on to identify two categories of 

documents to which the public presumption does not apply: “grand jury transcripts and 

warrant materials in the midst of a pre-indictment investigation.” Id. 

                                               

1

 The information at issue here does not belong to the Defendant but rather to a 

nonparty. While this information was not subpoenaed, a Rule 45 analysis could also be 

relevant. To resist third party discovery that requires “disclosing a trade secret or other 

confidential research, development, or other commercial information,” the nonparty must 

first show that the requested information is protected as a trade secret or confidential 

commercial information. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 45(d)(3)(B); Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 

F.R.D. 674, 684 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Then, “the burden shifts to the requesting party to 

show a ‘substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met 

without the undue hardship[.]’” Gonzales, 234 F.R.D. at 684. 

Case 3:15-cv-01199-BEN-NLS Document 50 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4 

15cv1199 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

Here, Plaintiff asserts a public interest over the electronic record of an expert’s 

private business information. The business information at stake—namely, the expert’s 

brand—is not an official record that displays the workings of a government agency. 

While Kamakana affirmed the unsealing of Honolulu’s city and county police records 

that were sealed in an underlying whistleblower case, it noted that the public’s interest in 

unsealing records is outweighed if the disclosure would “release trade secrets.” Id. at 

1179. 

Further, the presumption of public access does not apply to discovery, which under 

the common law “are not public components of a civil trial.” Seattle Times Co. v. 

Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33 (1984). Specifically, 

Much of the information that surfaces during pretrial discovery 

may be unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying 

cause of action. Therefore, restraints placed on discovered, but 

not yet admitted, information are not a restriction on a 

traditionally public source of information. 

Id.

In sum, the court finds that the Excel file belonging to the expert’s private 

company is not the type of government document contemplated to be produced under 

Kamakana. And even if it could be considered such a government document, it would be 

entitled to public access because it contains the proprietary business information of a 

private, nonparty witness. 

3. Collateral Litigation. 

Plaintiff argues that the public has a right to the Excel file so that “collateral 

litigants or future litigants” can use it in their own lawsuits. Jt. Mtn., p.7. The court 

notes that Plaintiff does not complain that by failing to produce the electronic file for 

public use, Defendant, or Ms. Xitco, has in some way failed to comply with the expert 

disclosure requirements of Rule 26(a)(2). She does not complain that her ability to 

litigate this case will be impaired by not having the electronic file available to the public 

and only having the hard copy available. 

Case 3:15-cv-01199-BEN-NLS Document 50 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5 

15cv1199 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

As a threshold matter, any party may move to compel another party to make the 

disclosures required under Rule 26(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(A); Payne v. Exxon 

Corp., 121 F. 3d 503, 510 (9th Cir. 1997). But Plaintiff herself has no basis to move to 

compel the production of the Excel file because she already has access to it. Instead, she 

asserts rights on behalf of a reporter or “collateral litigants or future litigants to collect 

this data for use in their own lawsuits.” Jt. Mtn., p.7. In support, she cites to a Ninth 

Circuit case that “strongly favors access to discovery materials to meet the needs of 

parties engaged in collateral litigation.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 

1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003). 

There is no collateral litigation going on here, as was the case in Foltz. And if 

there was collateral litigation, it is the collateral litigants—and not the original litigants—

who have standing to move to intervene and unseal the information. See id. (granting 

private intervenors’ motion to unseal documents in an underlying litigation). Further, 

Foltz says nothing about the rights of future, unidentified litigants. 

In sum, Plaintiff has no standing to assert rights on behalf of unidentified future or 

collateral litigants. Any collateral litigant would have the ability to move to intervene in 

this case and file a motion to lift the protective order on the Excel file. 

4. First Amendment Rights. 

Plaintiff argues that she has the first amendment right to send an electronic copy of 

the Excel file to a reporter who would want to examine the Excel file. But “[a] litigant 

has no First Amendment right of access to information made available only for purposes 

of trying his suit.” Seattle Times, 467 U.S. at 32. Plaintiff offers no explanation for how 

her first amendment right to free speech would be impaired if she was limited to sending 

only a hard copy of the expert’s report and list of Excel formulas to a reporter. 

If a reporter wanted to seek the electronic file, the reporter—much like the 

newspaper in Kamakana—could move to intervene and ask the court to unseal the Excel 

file. The court finds that a hard copy of the report and formulas is sufficient to satisfy 

Plaintiff’s first amendment rights. 

Case 3:15-cv-01199-BEN-NLS Document 50 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6 

15cv1199 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

Order. 

 The court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for the protective order attached as 

Exhibit 1. Even though Plaintiff did not suggest any edits to the protective order, the 

court ORDERS that it provide—as Defendant offered—that the Excel file be retained by 

Defendant for two years following the final disposition of this action. 

 The proposed protective order must be lodged with chambers via email in Word 

format by May 25, 2017. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 22, 2017 

Case 3:15-cv-01199-BEN-NLS Document 50 Filed 05/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6