Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03732/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03732-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abbott Laboratories
Counter-defendant
Nova Biomedical Corporation
Counter-claimant
Therasense, Inc.
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THERASENSE, INC., and ABBOTT

LABORATORIES,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

BECTON, DICKINSON AND CO.,

Defendant(s). 

THERASENSE, INC., and ABBOTT

LABORATORIES

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NOVA BIOMEDICAL CORPORATION,

Defendant(s). 

BECTON DICKINSON & CO.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

THERASENSE, INC.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C04-2123 MJJ (BZ)

ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION OF

ABBOTT LABORATORIES TO

PERMIT IN-HOUSE COUNSEL

ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL

DOCUMENTS ON THE SAME BASIS

AS OUTSIDE COUNSEL

No. C04-3732 MJJ (BZ)

No. C04-3327 MJJ (BZ)

Now before me is the motion of Abbot Laboratories to

permit in-house counsel access to confidential documents on

Case 3:04-cv-03732-WHA Document 75 Filed 08/11/05 Page 1 of 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

2

the same basis as outside counsel. Although the parties have

agreed on the general terms of a protective order, they

disagree about whether in-house counsel should be granted

access to information designated confidential or highly

confidential. Abbott Laboratories contends that two of its

in-house attorneys, Karen L. Hale and Jose E. Rivera, should

have access to confidential and highly information on the same

basis as outside counsel. Defendants Nova Biomedical

Corporation and Becton, Dickinson and Company argue that Hale

and Rivera should be denied such access because they

“participate in and influence competitive decisions.” 

Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the supporting

declarations, the Court is satisfied that neither Karen L.

Hale nor Jose E. Rivera are involved in competitive

decisionmaking for Abbott Laboratories. See Brown Bag

Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir.

1992); U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 730 F.2d 1465, 1468

(Fed. Cir. 1984); Amgen, Inc. v. Elanex Pharmaceuticals, 160

F.R.D. 134, 139 (W.D. Wash. 1994); Carpenter Tech. Corp. v.

Armco, Inc., 132 F.R.D. 24 (E.D. Pa. 1990). Both Hale and

Rivera have filed declarations in which they state that they

are not involved in competitive decisionmaking for Abbott

Laboratories; that they have no involvement in product

pricing, sales, marketing, production, research, or

development; that they do not prosecute patents; and that they

agree not to assume any role in product design or prosecution

of patents related to blood glucose testing during the course

of the litigation and for three years after the conclusion of

Case 3:04-cv-03732-WHA Document 75 Filed 08/11/05 Page 2 of 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

3

this case. See Supplemental Declaration of Karen L. Hale

(“Hale Supp. Decl.”) ¶¶ 1-2, 4; Supplemental Declaration of

Jose E. Rivera (“Rivera Supp. Decl.”) ¶¶ 1-2, 4. Hale and

Rivera have been granted access to confidential information

pursuant to protective orders in the past, and have complied

with the terms of such orders. See Hale Supp. Decl. ¶ 16;

Rivera Supp. Decl. ¶ 9. They also agree to abide by the terms

of the protective order in this case, and to store any

confidential information in a secure facility in the

litigation department or on a password protected server. Hale

Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 17-18; Rivera Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 10-11. By

contrast, defendants have presented no evidence to demonstrate

that a significant risk of inadvertent disclosure will exist

if Hale and Rivera are permitted access to confidential

information. I therefore find that allowing Hale and Rivera

access to confidential information will not result in an

unacceptable risk of inadvertent disclosure. See Matsushita

Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 929 F.2d 1577, 1580

(Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing U.S. Steel, 730 F.2d at 1468). 

Hale and Rivera advise Abbott Laboratories regarding

litigation decisions in this case, and Hale in particular

spends a significant portion of her time on work on this

lawsuit. See Decl. of Karen L. Hale Regarding Protective

Order (“Hale Decl.”) ¶ 3; Hale Supp. Decl. ¶ 10-11; Decl. of

Jose E. Rivera Regarding Protective Order (“Rivera Decl.”) ¶

5; Rivera Supp. Decl. ¶ 7-8. There also appears to be no

dispute that in-house counsel at Abbott Laboratories

ordinarily involve themselves in litigation, including

Case 3:04-cv-03732-WHA Document 75 Filed 08/11/05 Page 3 of 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

4

regularly attending depositions and hearings, and drafting or

reviewing substantive pleadings and discovery responses. See

id. Indeed, counsel have attested that they intend to file

pro hac vice applications in this case and attend hearings,

depositions, and the trial, as well as review all pleadings,

expert reports, and other correspondence. See Hale Supp.

Decl. ¶ 12; Rivera Supp. Decl. ¶ 8. Abbott Laboratories would

therefore suffer prejudice if Hale and Rivera are denied

access to confidential documents. This is especially true

given that defendants represented to the Court at a telephonic

discovery conference on this matter that all or most of

documents that they had produced had been marked confidential

or highly confidential. The Court is satisfied that limiting

access to confidential information to Hale and Rivera strikes

the proper balance between protecting against the risk of

inadvertent disclosure and allowing the parties to effectively

litigate their case. See Brown Bag Software v. Symantec

Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1992). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Abbot Laboratories’ motion

is GRANTED, and Karen L. Hale and Jose E. Rivera shall have

access to information designated confidential or highly

confidential on condition that they sign the protective order

in this case and abide by the restrictions on their work they

have agreed to assume in their declarations. 

Dated: August 11, 2005

Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\THERASENSE\CONFIDENTIAL2.ORD.wpd

Case 3:04-cv-03732-WHA Document 75 Filed 08/11/05 Page 4 of 4