Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company
Filing
149
ORDER re 87 Discovery Letter BriefJoint Report #1 filed by Hewlett-Packard Company. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 12/18/2013. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2013)
<![CDATA[
1
*E-Filed: December 18, 2013*
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
For the Northern District of California
NOT FOR CITATION
8
United States District Court
7
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
ERIC BENEDICT, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
12
v.
No. C13-00119 LHK (HRL)
ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT #1
13
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
[Re: Docket No. 87]
14
15
Defendant.
____________________________________/
16
Eric Benedict sues Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) over its alleged failure to pay him for
17
overtime worked. During discovery, HP learned that Benedict made and kept a mirror image of his
18
employer-issued laptop before returning it upon resigning. This laptop reportedly was an important
19
tool used by plaintiff in performing his job duties, and it contained reams of information about HP’s
20
business, some of it confidential. Apparently intermingled with the HP information was personal
21
information of the plaintiff. Benedict now explains that he was only interested in saving the
22
personal information and did not intend to, nor did he, misuse any of the HP data. HP remains
23
unpersuaded by plaintiff’s protests of innocence and is suspicious that he was up to no good. HP
24
wants the mirror image back. However, the issues surrounding that effort are not the subject of the
25
current discovery dispute.
26
The dispute here is whether plaintiff may, under the Protective Order, designate the identity
27
of his current employer as either “Highly Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only”(“AEO”) or (his
28
compromise proposal) “Confidential” but with the added caveat that no HP employee may contact
1
that employer. Plaintiff insists he needs this protection for fear that HP managers, in retaliation for
2
his daring to sue over overtime, will contact his current employer and bad mouth him for what they
3
would characterize as his dishonesty. HP retorts that plaintiff’s concern is nonsense, that the name
4
of his current employer does not merit protection under the Protective Order, and that either the
5
AEO or Confidential designation would hamstring its legitimate discovery inquiries.
6
The dispute is driven by distrust. Benedict does not trust HP to not go behind his back and
7
harm his relationship with his current employer. HP does not trust anything plaintiff now says about
8
innocent intentions and no-harm-done because he made and took that mirror image of all his work.
9
At this point, each side’s fears are speculative. This court will not credit speculation in deciding this
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
dispute. It would be most unusual in a case such as this to grant protective order protection to the
11
name of a current employer of a plaintiff, and on the showing here the court declines to do so.
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 18, 2013
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
1
C13-00119 Notice will be electronically mailed to:
2
Adam T. Klein
3
Caryn F Horner chorner@sidley.com, kmelendy@sidley.com, sfdocket@sidley.com,
tscuffil@sidley.com
atk@outtengolden.com, aplatt@outtengolden.com, kar@outtengolden.com
4
Daniel M. Hutchinson
dhutchinson@lchb.com
David Ryan Carpenter
drcarpenter@sidley.com
5
6
Jahan C. Sagafi
jsagafi@outtengolden.com
Jennifer Lin Liu
jliu@outtengolden.com
7
8
9
Juno E. Turner jturner@outtengolden.com, jlyons@outtengolden.com,
mhendriksen@outtengolden.com
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Kelly M. Dermody
kdermody@lchb.com
11
Marc Pilotin
12
Mark E. Haddad
13
Max Fischer
14
Wendy M. Lazerson
15
Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.
mpilotin@lchb.com, ajones@lchb.com
mhaddad@sidley.com, grodriguez@Sidley.com, LAlegria@Sidley.com
mfischer@sidley.com, dgiusti@sidley.com
wlazerson@sidley.com, kmelendy@sidley.com, SFLitScan@Sidley.com
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
