Rossi Motion for Protective Order

135.0_Notice_of_hearing Rossi motion for Protective Order re 3rd P defendants’ depositions. (Hearing scheduled Thursday February 9, 2017)

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order As to the Depositions of J.M. Products, Inc., United States Quantum Leap, LLC, Fulvio Fabiani, and The Boeing Company

This strikes me as quite unusual. There is a Protective Order Agreement in place. It allows a disclosing party to label disclosures (and depositions) as Protected, which are then governed by special rules. Normally, it is the disclosing party that designates material as protected. However, there is a provision that allows any party to designate material as protected. However, this motion might not be about that kind of Protective Order. It is possible that this is an attempt to prevent certain questions from being asked in depositions. An example was produced on ECW of a case where a shareholder in a plaintiff company — not a party to the dispute — was to be deposed by defendant action, and the court agreed with the plaintiff that this was way overboard intrusive, probably a fishing expedition. But we don’t know, and some people are inventing interpretations not supported by any evidence so far.

To look at the stipulated Protective Order:

32. … In the event that a third party produces Materials in this litigation that it does not designate as Confidential Information but a party’s Counsel reasonably believes in good faith should be designated as Confidential Information, the party may give written notice to the other parties of the specific Materials that should be deemed Confidential Information, after which the specified Materials shall be treated and labeled (or otherwise identified) as such, subject to Paragraph 16 above.

Paragraph 16 and all other sections, as far as I noticed, assume the designation is made by the producing party, who, if there is any objection, must justify it. This would only go to the Court if there is a sustained disagreement. Annesser is asking for the court to grant the motion, attempting to suppress disclosure of what has been revealed by Johnson, Fabiani, and Boeing. If Annesser did not already notify IH of a claim of confidentiality, he’s going to get his wrist slapped. If IH was notified and objected, I’d expect to see that noted in the Motion (as has been done with other Motions). It’s not.

Johnson and Fabiani have attorneys who could request confidentiality, but apparently did not. Boeing likewise could have joined the Protective Order and required confidentiality. I think the provision above, from the Protective Order, is intended to cover inadvertent disclosure by a third party. We should know what is going on soon, unless a Protective Order is granted.

Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax


Leave a Reply