Opinion
7:23-CV-5001
02-08-2024
Russell et al. v. C.R. England, Inc. et al.
HONORABLE MICHAEL D. NELSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dear Magistrate Judge Nelson:
Defendants C.R. England, Inc. and Kevin C. Sims submit this position statement in accordance with the Court's February 1, 2024, email. While the parties have amicably attempted to resolve discovery disputes without the assistance of the Court, they have been unable to agree on the entry of a Protective Order.
This case arises out of a collision between two semi-tractors and trailers in a parking lot. Defendant Sims, while operating a semi-tractor and trailer in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant C.R. England, was in a collision with another semi-tractor and trailer, in which Plaintiff Tommy Russell was located. Plaintiff, along with his wife, Debby Valdes Russell, have sued Defendants for negligence and loss of consortium. Defendants deny that any negligence caused Plaintiffs' alleged injuries or damages.
On December 12, 2023, Plaintiffs served their interrogatories and requests for production. A significant number of Plaintiffs' production requests called for records containing confidential business and financial information. In response, Defendants drafted a proposed protective order that would secure the confidential information of both parties, including Plaintiffs' medical and financial information. Plaintiffs were not amendable to the Defendants' proposed order nor the Court's standard protective order. When asked if there was an alternative protective order to which they would agree, Plaintiffs asserted they would not stipulate to any protection order. As a result, on February 1, 2024, Defendants served their written discovery responses, but have refrained from producing certain documents until the Court rules on their request for a protective order.
Upon a showing of good cause, courts may issue a protective order “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.” Schoffstall v. Henderson, 223 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir. 2000) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)). When a party demonstrates that the disclosure of confidential commercial information without a protective order would cause “specific prejudice or harm” to their business interests, they have shown good cause. Marquis Procap Sys., LLC v. Novozymes N. Am., Inc., No. 8:20CV395, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86255, *12 (D. Neb. May 12, 2022). And because of “the need to safeguard confidential information within the discovery process from disclosures harmful to business interests,” courts have broad discretion to order that “confidential . . . commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way.” Vishay Dale Elecs., Inc. v. Cyntec Co., No. 8:07CV191, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83276, *9 (D. Neb. Sept. 22, 2008) (quoting Rule 26(c)(1)(G)).
Here, Defendants ask that a protective order be entered-whether their proposed order or one crafted by the Court-to ensure their proprietary and confidential business information is used only for the purposes of this litigation. Rather than relying on conclusory statements, the Defendants' necessity for such an order can be specifically demonstrated by the nature of Plaintiffs' requests, which include, among other things, requests for C.R. England's: (1) practices and protocols related to its commercial motor vehicle operations; (2) documents related to regulatory compliance and budget; (3) information and records, including any cost/benefit analyses, regarding its system for the routing of trip assignments; (4) agendas or minutes from board and executive meetings; (5) internal auditing reports analyzing its operations; (6) documents regarding its compensation system; and (7) human resource files for numerous personnel.
This type of confidential information falls “squarely within the ambit of Rule 26(c),” as the requested discovery would reveal proprietary and in-depth information about C.R. England's business structure, practices, protocols, analytics, and financials. Andrews v. United States, No. 2:20CV02094, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56493, *2 (W.D. Ark. Mar. 25, 2021). Without a protective order, Defendants face the risk of this confidential information being publicly disseminated and accessible to its competitors. C.R. England has developed innovative business practices to set it apart from its competitors in the transportation services industry, and it should be entitled to protect records that would reveal its proprietary business models, financials, and strategies. This Court's standard protective order recognizes the need to protect such information, classifying “proprietary business plans and strategies,” “internal audit outcomes,” “personnel data,” and other types of commercially sensitive information requested by Plaintiffs as “confidential discovery material.”
The clear harm to Defendants' interests that would occur if they were required to disclose confidential and proprietary information without any protections demonstrates good cause for the entry of a protective order. Thus, Defendants respectfully request the Court issue a protective order that designates a method for disclosing such information.
Very truly yours, David C. Mullin