Aqui Es Texcoco, Inc. et al v. Lopez et al, No. 3:2012cv02113 - Document 15 (S.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 14 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 1/11/2013. (knb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Aqui Es Texcoco, Inc. et al v. Lopez et al Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDUARDO MALDONADO LOPEZ, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 15 AQUI ES TEXCOCO, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 AQUI ES TEXCOCO, et al., 19 Plaintiffs, 20 v. 21 22 EDUARDO MALDONADO LOPEZ, et al., 23 Defendants. 24 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 12-1215-BEN(WVG) ORDER REGARDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Civil No. 12-2113-BEN(WVG) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DOC. NO. 14) 25 26 On January 9, 2013, the Court held a Status Conference in the 27 above-entitled 28 Plaintiffs (“Lopez”) in case no. 12-1215 (wage and hour lawsuit). cases. Douglas Clearly 1 appeared on behalf of 12cv2113 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Reed Smith appeared on behalf of Defendants on case no. 12-1215 and 2 Plaintiffs in case no. 12-2113 (“Aqui”). Harry McGahey appeared on 3 behalf of Defendants (“Lopez”) in case no. 12-2113 (trade libel 4 lawsuit). 5 At the Status Conference, the Court discussed with counsel 6 the need for, and the propriety of, a protective order for the 7 production of Aqui’s financial information in its initial disclo- 8 sures. 9 Case no. 12-1215 involves Plaintiffs Lopez’ and Alejandro 10 Lopez Ferreira’s (“Ferreira”) allegations that they worked for Aqui, 11 a restaurant, and inter alia, were not properly paid for the hours 12 that they worked, were not afforded meal and rest periods, were not 13 paid their wages upon their discharge, and that Aqui failed to 14 properly provide them with itemized pay statements. One of Aqui’s 15 affirmative defenses to Lopez’ and Ferreira’s claims is that the 16 amount alleged to be owed is offset by amounts that Lopez and 17 Ferreira owe Aqui in Aqui’s trade libel lawsuit. On July 25, 2012, 18 the Court ordered the parties to provide their initial disclosures 19 to each other by September 13, 2012. Thereafter, on October 26, 20 2012, the Court held a Case Management Conference, the result of 21 which, inter alia, was that Aqui was ordered to disclose its damages 22 estimate to Lopez and Ferreira on or before November 9, 2012. 23 In the wage and hour lawsuit, Aqui did not disclose its 24 damages estimate as ordered at the October 26, 2012 Case Management 25 Conference, nor did it object to the disclosure of the estimate. 26 Aqui’s counsel argued that while it did not object to production of 27 its financial information, the financial information is protected by 28 its financial privacy rights and is Aqui’s trade secret. 2 12cv2113 1 Case no. 12-2113 involves Aqui’s allegations that Lopez and 2 Ferreira (and Sandra Castillo) have committed trade libel and have 3 misappropriated Aqui’s name and trade secrets by opening a competing 4 restaurant with a same or similar name that serves the same or 5 similar food. On December 14, 2012, the Court ordered the parties to 6 provide their initial disclosures to each other by January 23, 2013. 7 Lopez’ counsel in case no. 12-1215 argued that since Aqui did 8 not object to producing its financial information (stating that such 9 information is protected from disclosure by Aqui’s financial privacy 10 rights and that such information is Aqui’s trade secret) and did not 11 produce 12 objections have been waived. Therefore, Aqui should produce its 13 financial information to Lopez, without restriction. See Burlington 14 Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. District Court, 408 F.3d 1142, 15 1147-1148 (9th Cir. 2005). a privilege log for the financial information, those 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that in a party’s 17 initial disclosure, a party must provide to all other parties: “a 18 computation of each category of damages claimed by the disclosing 19 party - who must make available for inspection and copying as under 20 Rule 21 privileged or protected from disclosure, on which each computation 22 is based...” 34 the documents or other evidentiary material, 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) states in pertinent part: 24 unless The Court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party... from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following... (B) specifying terms, including time and place for the disclosure or discovery;.. (G) requiring that a trade secret or... commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way. 25 26 27 28 3 12cv2113 1 Here, in case no. 12-1215 (wage and hour lawsuit), Aqui did 2 not comply with Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). Instead, it provided a 3 general statement regarding the damages it claims to have suffered. 4 A general statement regarding alleged damages is insufficient under 5 Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). Therefore, Aqui shall provide to all other 6 counsel in both cases detailed financial information that supports 7 its claim for damages. 8 Despite Aqui’s blatant violation of 26(a)(1)(A)(iii), and 9 this Court’s Order of October 26, 2012, it is well recognized that 10 federal judges have fairly wide latitude to manage discovery to 11 ensure that litigation efficiently moves forward. California ex. 12 rel. Cal. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 13 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1988), Jardin v. DATAllegro, 2011 WL 3299395 at 14 *5 (S.D. Cal. 2011). Also, despite Aqui’s violation, the Court must 15 not blindly and reflexively simply order all potentially sensitive 16 financial information to be disclosed to Aqui’s competitors, without 17 considering options to mitigate the damage that may result from 18 unrestricted disclosures of Aqui’s financial information. 19 Accordingly, Aqui shall not be compelled to produce its 20 financial information without restriction. Even though Aqui failed 21 to object to producing its financial information without restric- 22 tion, the financial information is still protected from disclosure 23 by Aqui’s financial privacy rights and is Aqui’s trade secret. 24 Further, at the January 9, 2013 Status Conference, Aqui’s counsel 25 noted that both case no. 12-1215 and case no. 12-2113 involve the 26 same employees (Lopez and Ferreira), same or similar restaurant 27 28 4 12cv2113 1 names (Aqui Es Texcoco and Aqui Esta Texcoco)1/ the same type of food 2 being sold in the same limited geographic area. The Court finds 3 these 4 information should be produced pursuant to a protective order. factors to be compelling reasons why Aqui’s financial 5 Here, the Court simply rules that Aqui’s general statement 6 regarding its damages is insufficient under Rule 26 (a)(1)(A)(iii), 7 and fashions a remedy for the insufficiency. The Court finds that a 8 protective order (to be drafted by the parties) will meet the needs 9 of all parties in these actions. The protective order may provide 10 that certain to-be-produced documents may be designated as for 11 “Attorney’s Eyes Only.” Rule 26(c)(1)(B),(G). The protective order 12 shall include the following language: 13 No document shall be filed under seal unless counsel 14 secures 15 document under seal. An application to file a document 16 under seal shall be served on opposing counsel, and on 17 the person or entity that has custody and control of 18 the document, if different from opposing counsel. If 19 opposing counsel, or the person or entity who has 20 custody and control of the document, wishes to oppose 21 the application, he/she must contact the chambers of 22 the judge who will rule on the application, to notify 23 the judge’s staff that an opposition to the applica- 24 tion will be filed. 25 Lopez’ counsel in case no. 12-1215 objects to a provision in 26 the protective order that would allow Aqui to designate some to-be- a court order allowing the filing of a 27 28 1/ Defendants in the trade libel lawsuit represent that they no longer use the name “Aqui Esta Texcoco.” 5 12cv2113 1 produced documents as for “Attorney’s Eyes Only.” Specifically, 2 Lopez’ counsel believes that since he will not be able to show those 3 to-be-produced documents to his clients, he will be unable to 4 properly advise them regarding Aqui’s financial status and alleged 5 damages. 6 However, there is nothing stopping Lopez’ counsel from 7 reviewing 8 himself, and/or from seeking assistance from financial professionals 9 to interpret the data contained in the documents, and formulating 10 opinions about what the documents state, so as to properly advise 11 his clients. Furthermore, as Aqui’s counsel suggested, counsel for 12 Lopez and Ferreira may discuss the financial information in general 13 terms. While this may have certain limitations, it is an avenue that 14 counsel should explore and include within the protective order. In 15 addition, the Court is not foreclosing counsel from seeking relief 16 from the Court to permit full or enhanced disclosure of Aqui’s 17 financial information to Lopez and Ferreira. Therefore, Lopez’ 18 counsel’s objection in this regard is overruled. the documents designated “Attorney’s Eyes Only,” by 19 As a result, in case no. 12-2113, Defendants’ Motion for 20 Protective Order (Doc. No. 14) is GRANTED. The protective order 21 shall apply in case no. 12-1215. 22 On or before January 14, 2013, counsel for Aqui shall provide 23 to all other counsel a protective order that provides that any party 24 may designate certain documents as for “Attorney’s Eyes Only”. 25 26 27 28 6 12cv2113 1 2 On or before January 21, 2013 counsel for all other parties shall approve the protective order as to form. 3 On or before January 22, 2013, counsel for Aqui shall 4 produce to all other counsel the documents that evidence Aqui’s 5 claimed damages. 6 7 DATED: January 11, 2013 8 9 Hon. William V. Gallo U.S. Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 12cv2113
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
