Court Opinion

ID: 9908250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 15:02:56.075606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:04.487702
License: Public Domain

SUPERIOR COURT
                                     OF THE
                               STATE OF DELAWARE
PAUL R. WALLACE                                                     LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER
     JUDGE                                                              500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 10400
                                                                         WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801
                                                                                (302) 255-0660

                          Date Submitted: November 21, 2023
                           Date Decided: December 7, 2023

David A. Dorey, Esquire                            Kevin R. Shannon, Esquire
James G. Gorman III, Esquire                       Christopher N. Kelly, Esquire
BLANK ROME, LLP                                    Abraham C. Schneider, Esquire
1201 N. Market St., Suite 800                      Emma K. Diver, Esquire
Wilmington, Delaware 19801                         POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
                                                   1313 N. Market St., 6th Floor
James T. Smith, Esquire                            Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Brian S. Paszamant, Esquire
Gregory S. Bergman, Esquire                        Walter C. Carlson, Esquire
BLANK ROME, LLP                                    Nilofer Umar, Esquire
130 North 18th Street                              Heather Benzmiller Sultanian, Esquire
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103                   Kendra Stead, Esquire
                                                   SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
                                                   One South Dearborn
                                                   Chicago, Illinois 60603

RE: BBP Holdco, Inc. et al. v. Brunswick Corp.
    C.A. No. N20C-10-135 PRW CCLD
    Plaintiffs’ Exceptions to the Special Magistrate’s1 November 7, 2023 Ruling

Dear Counsel:

       This Letter Order disposes of Plaintiffs’ Exceptions to the Special

1
   Re-designated from “Special Master” to “Special Magistrate,” per the Superior Court’s recent
adoption of this nomenclature in concert with its sister courts.
BBP Holdco, Inc. et al. v. Brunswick Corp.
C.A. No. N20C-10-135 PRW CCLD
December 7, 2023
Page 2 of 12

Magistrate’s November 7, 2023 Ruling2 that resolved Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order

Vacating Defendant’s Deposition Transcript Confidentiality Designations.3 For the

reasons explained below, the Exceptions are DENIED.

              I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       In 2015, the parties entered into a Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement (the

“SAPA”) with Plaintiffs as the buyers and Defendant Brunswick Corporation

(“Brunswick”) as the seller.4       In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege Brunswick

intentionally failed to disclose material facts regarding a sales ban, recall, and fine

issued by the Swedish Work Environmental Authority for one of its products.5

Plaintiffs seek indemnity for losses it allegedly incurred in connection with the sales

ban, recall, and fine, along with litigation costs and related expenses.6

2
   Letter Ruling by Special Magistrate Addressing Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Vacating
Defendant’s Deposition Transcript Confidentiality Designations (“Ltr. Ruling”) (D.I. 491).
3
   Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Vacating Defendant’s Deposition Transcript Confidentiality
Designation (“Pltfs.’ Mot.”) (D.I. 437).
4
   See BBP Holdco, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 2022 WL 1178468, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 21,
2022).
5
    See id.
6
    See id.
BBP Holdco, Inc. et al. v. Brunswick Corp.
C.A. No. N20C-10-135 PRW CCLD
December 7, 2023
Page 3 of 12

         Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rules 5(g)7 and 26(c),8 the parties agreed to,

and this Court entered, a Stipulation and Order Governing the Production and Use

of Confidential and Highly Confidential Information (the “Confidentiality Order”).9

Section 1 of the Confidentiality Order states, in pertinent part:

         [a]ny Producing Party may designate any Discovery Material as
         “Confidential” under the terms of this Stipulation if such party in good
         faith reasonably believes that such Discovery Material contains non-
         public, confidential[,] personal, proprietary, or commercially sensitive
         information that requires the protections provided in this Stipulation
         (“Confidential Discovery Material”).10

Section 2 governs the procedure for designating confidential discovery material. It

states that, “[i]n the case of depositions or other pre-trial testimony,” such

designation shall be made:

         (i) by a statement on the record, by counsel, at the time of such
         disclosure or before the conclusion of the deposition or testimony; or
         (ii) by written notice, sent to all Parties within ten (10) business days of
         the deposition or other pre-trial testimony; provided that only those
         portions of the transcript designated as Confidential Discovery Material
         or Highly Confidential Discovery Material shall be deemed
         Confidential Discovery Material or Highly Confidential Discovery

7
    “[E]xcept as otherwise provided by statute or rule, including this Rule 5(g) and Rule 26(c), all
pleadings and other papers of any nature filed with the Prothonotary, including . . . deposition
transcripts . . . shall become a part of the public record of the proceedings before this Court.” Del.
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 5(g).
8
   Rule 26(c) allows courts to grant protective orders “upon motion by a party or by the person
from whom discovery is sought” and “for good cause shown . . . .” Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 26(c).
9
     Confidentiality Order (D.I. 19).
10
     Id. ¶ 1.
BBP Holdco, Inc. et al. v. Brunswick Corp.
C.A. No. N20C-10-135 PRW CCLD
December 7, 2023
Page 4 of 12

           Material.11

On June 11, 2021, the Court entered an order of reference appointing

William D. Johnston, Esquire, as Special Magistrate for discovery matters.12

           Plaintiffs recently filed a Motion for Order Vacating Defendant’s Deposition

Transcript Confidentiality Designations.13 Through their motion, Plaintiffs sought

an order vacating Defendant’s designation of all 23 deposition transcripts as

“Confidential.”14 Brunswick opposed.15 And neither party requested argument.16

           The Special Magistrate issued a Letter Ruling on November 7, 2023, granting

Plaintiffs’ motion, in part, and denying it, in part.17 In his ruling, the Special

Magistrate found that Brunswick had not met Delaware’s governing standard of

“good cause” to keep the entire collection of deposition transcripts confidential.18

The Special Magistrate acknowledged that the language of the Confidentiality Order

11
     Id. ¶ 2.
12
     D.I. 76.
13
     Pltfs.’ Mot.
14
     Id.
15
   Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Vacating Defendant’s Deposition
Transcript Confidentiality Designations (D.I. 474).
16
   See Ltr. Ruling at 2 (quoting ID BioMedical Corp. v. TM Techs., Inc., 1994 WL 384605, at *2
(Del. Ch. July 20, 1994)).
17
     Id.
18
     Id. at 12-13.
BBP Holdco, Inc. et al. v. Brunswick Corp.
C.A. No. N20C-10-135 PRW CCLD
December 7, 2023
Page 5 of 12

permits a party to broadly designate a deposition transcript as “Confidential” if it

“contains” “Confidential Discovery Material,” and that “portions of the transcript

designated” can be understood to mean all portions of a transcript if a blanket

designation is made.19 But the Special Magistrate granted Plaintiffs’ motion, in part,

because he found that Brunswick’s designations were not sufficiently precise to meet

the applicable standard.20

         The Special Magistrate also denied Plaintiffs’ motion, in part. Specifically,

the Special Magistrate found he was:

         . . . not convinced that Defendant’s obligation to provide more targeted
         designations has been triggered at this time because of the procedural
         posture presented, namely, that deposition transcripts and exhibits have
         not yet been lodged with the court and there is no present statement of
         an intention (by Plaintiffs or Defendant) to do so. If and when that
         occurs, it will be incumbent upon the lodging party (or the party
         otherwise using the deposition testimony in court proceedings) to de-
         designate testimony as may be appropriate, with good faith review by
         counsel as required by paragraph 3 of the Confidentiality Order. But,
         at present, [he] agree[d] that the effort and cost associated with such an
         exercise would be unwarranted.21

The next day, Plaintiffs sent an email asking that the Special Magistrate reconsider

19
     Id. at 12.
20
     Id. at 12-13.
21
     Id. at 14.
BBP Holdco, Inc. et al. v. Brunswick Corp.
C.A. No. N20C-10-135 PRW CCLD
December 7, 2023
Page 6 of 12

his ruling.22 The Special Magistrate denied Plaintiffs’ request for reconsideration on

November 10, 2023.23 In that denial, the Special Magistrate further clarified his

Letter Ruling, explaining that: (1) Brunswick’s initial designation of deposition

transcripts as confidential was not improper; (2) Brunswick has a good faith

obligation to undertake good faith review and line-by-line designations in

connection with exhibits to the Amended Complaint and any other motions filed;

and, (3) the burden in no way falls on Plaintiffs to trigger Brunswick’s obligations

to initiate such review.24

                             II. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

         Plaintiffs have taken exception to the Special Magistrate’s Ruling.25 Plaintiffs

believe that the Confidentiality Order “obligates Defendant to revisit all of its

designations now.”26 They contend that no requirement exists that the transcripts

first be “lodged with the court” before Brunswick is obligated to revisit its

22
   Letter Ruling of Special Magistrate Addressing Plaintiffs’ Request for Reconsideration
(“Reconsideration Ltr. Ruling”), Ex. A (D.I. 492).
23
     Reconsideration Ltr. Ruling.
24
     Id. at 5-6 (emphasis added).
25
    See Opening Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Exceptions to the Special Magistrate’s November
7, 2023 Ruling (“Pltfs.’ Open. Br.”) (D.I. 493).
26
     Id. at 9.
BBP Holdco, Inc. et al. v. Brunswick Corp.
C.A. No. N20C-10-135 PRW CCLD
December 7, 2023
Page 7 of 12

confidentiality designations.27 In addition, Plaintiffs argue that the transcripts have

already been lodged, both as attachments to the Amended Complaint as well as

exhibits to this motion.28

           Brunswick counters that the Special Magistrate properly determined that (1)

the Confidentiality Order permits the designation of discovery material containing

confidential information, and (2) when deposition testimony is used in public court

filings, Brunswick will be obligated to determine more precisely the portions that

require confidential treatment and the portions that don’t.29 Brunswick further states

that the process of making line-by-line confidentiality designations is already

underway for deposition transcripts Plaintiffs filed with their Amended Complaint,

and will be followed for future summary judgment and pre-trial filings.30 And

Brunswick echoes the Special Magistrate observation that the obligation to do such

a review for all deposition transcripts isn’t yet triggered.31

27
     Id.
28
    Id. at 9-10. Plaintiffs also contend that the ruling is errant because it incorrectly states that
Plaintiffs have designated entire deposition transcripts as “Confidential,” when they have not done
so. Id. at 10. That argument is immaterial to the resolution of the present motion.
29
  Defendant’s Answering Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Exceptions to the Special
Magistrate’s November 7, 2023 Ruling (“Def.’s Ans. Br.”) at 7-8 (D.I. 496).
30
     Id at 8.
31
     Id at 7.
BBP Holdco, Inc. et al. v. Brunswick Corp.
C.A. No. N20C-10-135 PRW CCLD
December 7, 2023
Page 8 of 12

                              III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

           A Special Magistrate’s ruling is subject to de novo review by this Court.32

                                    IV. DISCUSSION

           The agreed-upon Confidentiality Order allows for either party to designate

“any Discovery Material” as “Confidential” “if such party in good faith reasonably

believes that such Discovery Material” is deserving of confidential treatment.33

Delaware law also provides, “where designations of confidentiality have been made

pursuant to a protective order, the burden is on the designating party to show good

cause.”34 And that requires a showing that “disclosure of the information would

work a clearly defined and serious injury.”35 Such injury “must be shown with

specificity.”36

           Here, the Special Magistrate found that Brunswick has not met the good cause

standard prescribed by this Court. But the Special Magistrate also determined that

an immediate review of all 23 deposition transcripts was neither appropriate nor

needed at this time. Instead, the Special Magistrate instructed Brunswick make

32
    See Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 122(c); DiGiacobbe v. Sestak, 743 A.2d 180, 184 (Del. 1999) (“the
standard of review for a [magistrate]'s findings—both factual and legal—is de novo”).
33
     Confidentiality Order ¶ 1.
34
     ID BioMedical Corp., 1994 WL 384605, at *2.
35
     Id.
36
     Id.
BBP Holdco, Inc. et al. v. Brunswick Corp.
C.A. No. N20C-10-135 PRW CCLD
December 7, 2023
Page 9 of 12

particularized showings and line-by-line designations for deposition transcripts once

they are “lodged with the court.”37

        The Special Magistrate’s ruling is sound. “Under the First Amendment of the

United States Constitution and as a matter of common law, the public has a

presumptive right of access to judicial records.”38 Indeed, “[t]he public's right of

access to court documents and proceedings ‘is considered fundamental to a

democratic state and necessary in the long run so that the public can judge the

product of the courts in a given case.’”39

        Yet, courts have clarified that “no public right of access exists with respect to

materials produced during the initial stages of discovery.”40 “[T]he public’s right of

access to discovery material only encompasses access to ‘judicial documents’” that

are “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial

process.”41 Conversely, “[d]ocuments that play no role in the performance of

37
     Ltr. Ruling at 14.
38
    Twitter, Inc. v. Musk, 2023 WL 4995738, at *1 (Del. Ch. Aug. 4, 2023) (quoting In re Appraisal
of Columbia Pipeline Gp., Inc., 2018 WL 4182207, at *1 (Del. Ch. Aug. 30, 2018)).
39
   Id. (quoting Al Jazeera Am., LLC v. AT & T Servs., Inc., 2013 WL 5614284, at *3 (Del. Ch.
Oct. 14, 2013)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
40
     In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 454 F. Supp.2d 220, 222 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
(citing United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)).
41
    SEC v. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d 222, 231 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Amodeo, 44 F.3d at 145);
see also Olson v. Major League Baseball, 29 F.4th 59, 87 (2d Cir. 2022) (“[A]s a threshold
question, the court determines whether the record at issue is a judicial document—a document to
which the presumption of public access attaches.”) (cleaned up). Judicial documents “directly
BBP Holdco, Inc. et al. v. Brunswick Corp.
C.A. No. N20C-10-135 PRW CCLD
December 7, 2023
Page 10 of 12

[adjudicative] functions, such as those passed between the parties in discovery, lie

entirely beyond the presumption’s reach and stand on a different footing . . . .”42 As

the United States Supreme Court has observed: “pretrial depositions . . . are not

public components of a civil trial” and are generally “conducted in private as a matter

of modern practice.”43

        At present, the deposition transcripts in question are documents “passed

between the parties in discovery.”44 The Special Magistrate made the judicious

determination that a particularized review of those documents now is unwarranted.

The Court agrees.

        All that said, any party filing deposition transcripts with the Court will need

affect an adjudication,” such as “those relating to the decision of a motion for summary judgment.”
Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 140 (2d Cir. 2004).
42
    Amodeo, 44 F.3d at 145 (emphasis added); see also Bank of America Nat. Trust and Sav. Ass’n
v. Hotel Rittenhouse Associates, 800 F.2d 339, 343-44 (3d Cir. 1986) (distinguishing between a
disputed settlement agreement filed with the court (a judicial document) and the products of
pretrial discovery (not judicial documents)); United States v. Smith, 776 F.2d 1104, 1111–12 (3d
Cir. 1985) (differentiating between a bill of particulars (a judicial document) and civil discovery
materials (not judicial documents)); Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880, 893 (2d Cir. 1982) (concluding
that deposition discovery materials are “[d]ocuments that play no role in the performance of Article
III functions”); Martindell v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 295-96 (2d Cir. 1979)
(establishing a presumption against public disclosure of pretrial discovery materials placed under
seal by a protective order of a court) (emphasis added); S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222,
232-33 (2d Cir. 2001) (ruling that pretrial deposition transcripts are not judicial documents).
43
   Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33 (1984) (citing Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443
U.S. 368, 389 (1979)).
44
     See Amodeo, 44 F.3d at 145.
BBP Holdco, Inc. et al. v. Brunswick Corp.
C.A. No. N20C-10-135 PRW CCLD
December 7, 2023
Page 11 of 12

to satisfy the good cause standard for any part thereof to retain confidential

designation. Brunswick’s initial designation of deposition transcripts as confidential

was in accordance with the Confidentiality Order’s requirements, and Brunswick

was under no immediate obligation to de-designate deposition transcripts not yet

submitted in relation to a filing seeking adjudication of the merits of substantive

issues.45

        Moreover, the ruling of the Special Magistrate—whom, as the parties well

know, has been “enlisted for these parties’ benefit”46—in Plaintiffs’ favor is not

merely a device through which Plaintiffs can extract an even more favorable result

from the Court.47 Instead, the ruling is a sound exercise of discretion promoting

efficient discovery.48 Evidently, Brunswick has already initiated a particularized

45
    Plaintiffs contend that all deposition transcripts are now judicial documents because they were
filed with the Court as exhibits to the present motion. Pltfs.’ Open. Br. at 9-10. That makes little
sense. The present motion does not “directly affect [the] adjudication” nor does it significantly
“determin[e] litigants’ substantive rights.” Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1049.
46
     BBP Holdco, Inc., 2022 WL 1178468, at *3.
47
    Be assured, the Court will not allow the mere filing of a discovery dispute motion or exceptions
to resolution thereof to facilitate an end run on the rather simple concepts explicated above. See
Pltfs.’ Open. Br. at 9 (Plaintiffs suggesting first that the in-question transcripts were made part of
the adjudicative phase of the case when they attached them as exhibits to the instant motion to
vacate confidentiality designations).
48
   The application of discovery rules is subject to the exercise of this Court’s sound discretion,
Dann v. Chrysler Corp., 166 A.2d 431, 432 (Del. Ch. 1960), and the Special Magistrate’s “[work
and] decisions [on these subjects] are [no] less thoughtful or worthy than those of a trial judge.”
BBP Holdco, Inc., 2022 WL 1178468, at *3 (quoting DiGiacobbe, 743 A.2d at 184).
BBP Holdco, Inc. et al. v. Brunswick Corp.
C.A. No. N20C-10-135 PRW CCLD
December 7, 2023
Page 12 of 12

review of those deposition transcripts attached as exhibits to Plaintiffs’ Amended

Complaint. Further, the deadline for summary judgment filings looms; presumably,

this will occasion deposition transcripts needing de-designation where appropriate.

Such prescribed procedures promote efficient discovery—Plaintiffs’ additional

exercise of litigious muscle here does not.

      Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ exceptions to the Special Magistrate’s November 7,

2023 Ruling are DENIED.

      IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                   _______________________
                                                   Paul R. Wallace, Judge
cc: All Counsel via File and Serve
    Special Magistrate William D. Johnston