Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00959/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00959-3/pdf.json

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

---

1 

16-cv-00959-GPC (DHB) 

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 

DUNCAN LINDSEY, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

ELSEVIER INC., et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 16-cv-00959-GPC (DHB) 

ORDER FOLLOWING DISCOVERY 

CONFERENCE 

 On January 25, 2017, the Court held a telephonic Discovery Conference with 

counsel for Plaintiff Duncan Lindsey (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Elsevier Inc., Elsevier 

B.V., and Elsevier, Ltd. (collectively, “Defendants”). (See ECF No. 36.) In its December 

22, 2016 Order, the Court set the Discovery Conference in order to discuss potential 

bifurcation of the case between liability and damages, and the status of discovery. (ECF 

No. 31.) 

To the extent it was not previously clear from the Court’s December 22, 2016 Order, 

all prior motions to compel are hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (See ECF 

Nos. 24, 30.) After hearing arguments from the parties during the Discovery Conference, 

the Court also DENIES Defendants’ motion to bifurcate and stay discovery. (See ECF No. 

Case 3:16-cv-00959-GPC-DHB Document 37 Filed 01/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

16-cv-00959-GPC (DHB) 

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

27.) As discussed during the Settlement Conference, the Court does not find any further 

phasing of discovery or bifurcation to be appropriate. Phase I of discovery did not meet its 

goal of enabling the parties the discuss settlement. Instead, it wasted nine months, 

accomplished little, and left the parties in a discovery quagmire. Accordingly, the Court 

finds good cause to issue an Amended Scheduling Order opening up discovery on all 

issues.1

 The parties should therefore proceed with full discovery within the parameters 

discussed during the Discovery Conference and as laid out below. 

1. Protective Order 

The existing Protective Order in this case protects the confidentiality of trade secrets, 

but does not contain an “Attorney’s Eyes Only” provision. (ECF No. 18.) The Protective 

Order may, however, be modified by the parties or by the Court “for good cause, or in the 

interest of justice, or on its own order at any time in these proceedings.” (See id. at p. 9.) 

In light of Plaintiff’s alleged threats that discovery in this matter “could lead to other 

customer lawsuits,”2

 the Court reminds Plaintiff of both his confidentiality obligations 

under the Protective Order and the Court’s ability to modify the Protective Order at any 

time in these proceedings. 

As discussed during the Discovery Conference, if, during the course of these 

proceedings, a party believes a trade secret cannot or will not be protected absent an 

“Attorney’s Eyes Only” provision, the party may move to modify the Protective Order as 

to that trade secret.3

 In any Joint Motion for Modification of the Protective Order, the party 

seeking protection must establish that the information sought is in fact a trade secret, and 

                                               

1

 The Court will not consider any prior discovery requests, to the extent they 

are withdrawn, as counting towards the parties’ limitations on discovery. See e.g., Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 33; Civ. L.R. 33.1, 36.1. 

2

 See ECF No. 35 at p. 5 n. 1. 

3

 The Court advises the parties that this should not be viewed as an opportunity 

to re-litigate the prior Joint Motion Re: Disputed Protective Order. (See ECF No. 12.) 

There must be a specific, non-speculative changed circumstance.

Case 3:16-cv-00959-GPC-DHB Document 37 Filed 01/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

16-cv-00959-GPC (DHB) 

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

that its disclosure would be harmful to the party’s interest in the property. Nutratech, Inc. 

v. Syntech (SSPF) Int’l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552, 554-550 (C.D. Cal. 2007). The party seeking 

disclosure must then establish that the information is relevant to the party’s claims or 

defenses or the subject matter of the lawsuit, and is necessary to prepare the case for trial. 

Id. at 555. 

If a party fails to comply with the Protective Order, at any time, the Court advises 

that it will not hesitate to impose “any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or 

within the inherent power of the court, including, without limitation, dismissal of any 

actions, entry of default, finding of contempt, imposition of monetary sanctions or 

attorneys’ fees and costs, and other lesser sanctions.” See Civ. L.R. 83.1. 

2. Discovery 

As stated in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), discovery is limited to “any 

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to 

the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the 

amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ 

resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden 

or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) 

(emphasis added). 

As discussed during the Discovery Conference, absent a compelling argument not 

presently before the Court, the Court advises that discovery concerning what third parties 

“intended” when they entered their own contracts with Defendants is not relevant. The 

Court further advises that it will not hesitate to order payment of attorney’s fees and costs 

going forward as set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. The Court will also 

consider cost-shifting if discovery appears unduly burdensome or expensive. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(B); OpenTV v. Liberate Techs., 219 F.R.D. 474, 475-76 (N.D. Cal. 2003); 

Nehad v. Browder, No. 15-cv-1386 WQH NLS, 2016 WL 3769807, at *3 (S.D. Cal. July 

15, 2016). 

/// 

Case 3:16-cv-00959-GPC-DHB Document 37 Filed 01/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

16-cv-00959-GPC (DHB) 

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 Court will separately issue an Amended Scheduling Order. If the parties need 

to modify the Amended Scheduling Order, they may do so by Joint Motion and upon a 

showing of good cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 27, 2017 

 _________________________ 

 LOUISA S PORTER 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00959-GPC-DHB Document 37 Filed 01/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4