Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03447/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03447-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement (Insurance)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 The letter briefs are found at Docket Nos. 95, 97 and 106.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PB FARRADYNE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THOMAS D. PETERSON,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-3447 SI

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

By letter briefs, the parties have submitted a discovery dispute to the Court for resolution.1 The

dispute concerns plaintiff’s designation of nearly the entirety of a recent document production as

“confidential” or “highly confidential – attorneys’ eyes only.” Defendant contends that these

designations are improper for a variety of reasons, including the fact that most documents are public

records. Defendant also contends that plaintiff has failed to comply with the terms of the protective

order requiring parties designating documents as confidential to explain the bases for the asserted

designations once those designations are challenged. 

Plaintiff responds that defendant’s letter brief was premature, and that the parties are close to

resolving the instant dispute because plaintiff has agreed to “downgrade the designations” of two

documents, and further agreed to “downgrade the designations” of all the documents listed in

defendant’s June 15, 2006 meet and confer letter “pending confirmation that they are not ‘Highly

Confidential’ or ‘Confidential’ within the meaning of the Protective Order.” Plaintiff’s August 15, 2006

letter brief. It is not clear from plaintiff’s letter whether plaintiff intends to completely remove any

Case 3:05-cv-03447-SI Document 109 Filed 08/18/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Plaintiff’s meet and confer e-mails state that it will “downgrade” certain documents pending

confirmation that the documents are in fact “public” documents. However, plaintiff’s letter brief also

generally argues, somewhat inconsistently, that “public” documents can be “confidential” or “highly

confidential.” 

3

 Defendant states, and plaintiff does not deny, that in other document productions that are not

the subject of the instant dispute, plaintiff has made a blanket designation listing all documents as

confidential. Plaintiff would be well-advised to review these document productions on a document-bydocument basis to determine whether the designations are proper under the protective order. Further,

if defendant challenges any such designations, plaintiff shall comply with the protective order by

promptly responding in writing with an explanation of the bases for the designations. Should defendant

file a further motion to compel regarding other blanket designations, the Court will be inclined to grant

attorneys’ fees and other appropriate relief. 

2

confidentiality designation, or just “downgrade” from “highly confidential” to “confidential.” Plaintiff

also does not explain what information it is waiting for to confirm that the documents are not “highly

confidential” or “confidential.”2

 

The Court concludes that plaintiff has failed to comply with the terms of the protective order,

and hereby ORDERS that documents with production numbers PFB000002-2750 be designated nonconfidential. By August 25, 2006, PBF shall produce a new disk containing those documents without

any confidentiality markings. Both in the meet and confer process and in the letter brief to this Court,

plaintiff has failed to provide any document-specific justification for the confidentiality designations,

leading the Court to conclude that there was no reasoned basis for designating virtually all of the

produced documents as confidential. Moreover, contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, confidentiality

designations impose significant burdens on the parties and the Court because all documents so

designated must be filed under seal. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to compel to the extent defendant seeks

the de-designation of documents identified as “confidential” or “highly confidential” in plaintiff’s initial

production of documents. The balance of defendant’s motion is DENIED.3

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03447-SI Document 109 Filed 08/18/06 Page 2 of 2