Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-04418/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-04418-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYNN MOORE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TRADER JOE'S COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-04418-KAW 

ORDER REGARDING JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 35

Plaintiffs bring the instant putative class action, alleging that Defendant Trader Joe's 

Company engaged in "misleading practices in its marketing, advertising, labeling and promotion 

of its 8.8 oz Trader Joe's Manuka Honey product . . . ." (First Amended Compl. ("FAC") ¶ 4, Dkt. 

No. 32.) On February 5, 2019, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding the protective 

order and Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' discovery requests. (Discovery Letter, Dkt. No. 35.)

As an initial matter, the Court raises concerns regarding the parties' meet and confer. For

example, Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs refused to identify the specific provisions they objected 

to in the protective order until February 4, 2019, the day before Plaintiffs' deadline for filing the 

instant joint letter. (Discovery Letter at 1.) Plaintiffs assert that Defendant refused to comply with 

the Court's discovery dispute letter requirements. (Id. at 5.) The Court will require that both

parties review the entirety of the Northern District of California's Guidelines for Professional 

Conduct, available at: https://cand.uscourts.gov/professional_conduct_guidelines.

A. Protective Order

The parties' primary dispute is over the protective order. Defendant seeks to add 

provisions from the Northern District of California's Model Protective Order for Litigation 

involving Patents, Highly Sensitive Confidential Information, and/or Trade Secrets ("Model Order 

Case 4:18-cv-04418-KAW Document 38 Filed 02/25/19 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

for Highly Confidential Information") due to the potential of third-party discovery from 

Defendant's competitors. (Discovery Letter at 2-3.) The Court reviews each of the specific 

provisions in dispute.

i. Section 2.6: Experts

The Model Order for Highly Confidential Information defines an "expert" as: "a person 

with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who (1) has been 

retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this action, (2) 

is not a past or current employee of a Party of or a Party's competitor, and (3) at the time of 

retention, is not anticipated to become an employee of a Party or of a Party's competitor." 

Defendant seeks to further expand the prohibited individuals to include business consultants or 

advisors. (Discovery Letter at 3.)

Plaintiffs argue that "[t]his will cripple Plaintiffs' ability to retain certain experts." 

(Discovery Letter at 3.) Defendant states that it would be amenable to a process by which 

potential experts are disclosed to Defendant before being given access to highly confidential 

information, with Defendant having a right to object and the parties having the ability to seek 

resolution by the Court. (Id.) The Court finds Defendant's position to be reasonable compromise, 

and ORDERS the parties to meet and confer on a process by which Defendant may object to 

Plaintiffs' experts who would be given access to highly confidential information, and which allows 

the parties to seek relief from the Court if necessary.

ii. Section 2.7: "Highly Confidential" Information

The Model Order for Highly Confidential Information defines "highly confidential" 

information as "extremely sensitive 'Confidential Information or Items,' disclosure of which to 

another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be 

avoided by less restrictive means." 

Plaintiffs complain that this term is "redundant and unnecessary, and it leaves uncertain 

what information would be 'extremely sensitive.'" (Discovery Letter at 3.) Plaintiffs also assert 

that "[t]his over-expansive confidentiality designation would hinder Plaintiffs' ability to conduct 

discovery and bring discovery disputes to the attention of the Court." (Id. at 4.) This language, 

Case 4:18-cv-04418-KAW Document 38 Filed 02/25/19 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Northern District of California

however, was approved by all judges of the Northern District of California. Moreover, Plaintiffs 

provide no explanation for why a "Highly Confidential" designation as defined would hinder 

Plaintiffs' ability to conduct discovery or bring discovery disputes to the Court. As Defendant 

points out, Plaintiffs will still be able to challenge confidentiality designations, and additionally,

any disputes brought to the Court can be filed under seal. The Court finds this term to be 

appropriate.1

iii. Section 5.2(b): Designating Deposition Testimony

The Model Order for Highly Confidential Information permits a designating party to 

designate the entirety of a deposition transcript as confidential or highly confidential for twentyone days, in order to allow the designating party to identify the specific portions of the testimony 

as to which protection is sought and the level of protection asserted.

Plaintiffs argue this is "an extraordinarily onerous process" that "is clearly an attempt to 

limit usage of any information in the lawsuit." (Discovery Letter at 4.) The Court disagrees. 

Again, this is a process that was approved by the Northern District of California. Further, Section 

5.2(b) does not forever limit the use of the transcript; rather, it affords a designating party twentyone days to specifically identify the confidential portions, in order to ensure that the 

confidentiality designations are narrowly tailored. The Court finds this term appropriate.

iv. Section 7.3: Limits of Disclosure

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant unfairly limits "House Counsel" to one attorney, and 

disallows the use of mock jurors or witnesses in the action. (Discovery Letter at 4.)

With respect to "House Counsel," Plaintiffs fail to explain how this term affects them. 

Plaintiffs are individuals, and "House Counsel" is defined as "attorneys who are employees of a 

party to this action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 

outside counsel." (Stipulated Protective Ord. for Highly Sensitive Confidential Information § 

 

1 The Court also anticipates that Defendant will be judicious in designating protected materials, as 

required by both model protective orders. (See Stipulated Protective Ord. for Standard Litigation 

§ 5.1 ("The Designating Party must designate for protection only those parts of material, 

documents, items, or oral or written communications that qualify . . . . Mass, indiscriminate, or 

routinized designations are prohibited."); Stipulated Protective Ord. for Highly Sensitive 

Confidential Information § 5.1 (same).)

Case 4:18-cv-04418-KAW Document 38 Filed 02/25/19 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Northern District of California

2.10.) Plaintiffs do not suggest that they have any House Counsel, and it appears that Plaintiffs' 

counsel are outside counsel who were "retained to represent or advise a party to this action . . . ." 

(Id. § 2.12.) The Court finds this limitation appropriate.

As to the use of mock jurors or witnesses, Defendant argues that this language is taken 

from the Model Order for Highly Confidential Information. (Discovery Letter at 4.) The Model 

Order for Highly Confidential Information, however, contemplates the disclosure of information 

to mock jurors to further trial preparation, and the "draft[ing] of a simplified, precisely tailored 

Undertaking for mock jurors to sign." (Stipulated Protective Ord. for Highly Sensitive 

Confidential Information at 10 n.5.) The Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer on this 

issue.

v. Section 12.5: Exclusion of Individuals from Depositions

Defendant seeks to add the following language: "Exclusion of Individuals from 

Depositions. Counsel for any Designating Party shall have the right to exclude from depositions 

any person who is not authorized by this Order to receive documents or information designated as 

Protected Material." (Discovery Letter at 4.) This language is not from either Model Order. 

Plaintiffs contend that this will give Defendant the unilateral right to exclude anyone from 

attending a deposition. (Id.) Defendant responds that this provision is only intended to allow a 

designating party to protect its confidential materials by excluding persons not authorized under 

the Protective Order from attending portions of the deposition during which such materials are 

discussed. (Id.) Defendant states that it is willing to modify the language as follows: "Exclusion 

of Individuals from Depositions: Counsel for any Designating Party shall have the right to exclude 

from the portions of depositions discussing Confidential or Highly Confidential information

any person who is not authorized by this Order to receive documents or information designated as 

Confidential or Highly Confidential, respectively." (Id. at 4-5 (emphasis added).)

The Court finds Defendant's modified proposed language reasonable; if an individual is not 

authorized to receive the confidential or highly confidential information, they would not be 

permitted to attend portions of a deposition that discuss that confidential or highly confidential 

information. The Court therefore finds this provision appropriate.

Case 4:18-cv-04418-KAW Document 38 Filed 02/25/19 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

B. Defendant's Production

Plaintiffs assert that Defendant has refused to produce any discovery in light of the current 

dispute over the protective order, including production that is not confidential such as marketing 

materials, advertisements, and product labels. (Discovery Letter at 5.) Defendant responds that it 

has not identified any marketing materials or advertising, while Plaintiffs have the product labels 

already. (Id.) Plaintiffs, however, do not appear to only request marketing materials, 

advertisements, and product labels; these are only examples of documents that would not be 

confidential, but that Defendant has failed to produce. The Court is not convinced that Defendant 

has no non-confidential documents that can be produced.2 The Court therefore ORDERS 

Defendant to produce all non-confidential, responsive documents within ten days of the date of 

this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

 

2 Again, the Court reminds the parties of their obligation not to over-designate materials as 

confidential. 

Case 4:18-cv-04418-KAW Document 38 Filed 02/25/19 Page 5 of 5