Zaragoza v. Apple Inc.

Background

Gabriela Zaragoza and Joseph Coyle sued Apple Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The parties anticipated that discovery, initial disclosures, and supplemental disclosures could include confidential, proprietary, trade-secret, and commercially sensitive information. They stipulated to a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which permits courts to limit disclosure of discovery materials for good cause.

The document is titled a “Stipulated Protective Order Regarding the Disclosure and Use of Discovery Materials as Modified by the Court.” The order states that the court found good cause for the protective-order provisions and approved the parties’ agreement.

Main provisions

Protected material may be used only for this case or a related appellate proceeding. It may not be used for another lawsuit, a business or competitive purpose, or any other purpose. The confidentiality obligations continue after the case ends unless the producing party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order directs otherwise.

The order establishes two confidentiality levels:

- “CONFIDENTIAL” materials may include confidential, proprietary, or commercially sensitive information. Subject to the order’s requirements, they may be disclosed to outside counsel and their litigation staff, up to three representatives of the receiving party, approved outside experts or consultants, court reporters and videographers, the court and court personnel, certain trial-support personnel, mock jurors who agree to confidentiality, a mediator and staff, or another person with the producing party’s written consent. - “CONFIDENTIAL–ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” materials may include extremely confidential or sensitive information whose disclosure could cause economic harm or significant competitive disadvantage. The order presumes that certain nonpublic information—such as trade secrets, pricing and financial data, sales information, business plans, product-development information, engineering documents, testing documents, and employee information—may qualify. Access is generally limited to qualifying outside counsel, approved outside experts or consultants, court reporters and videographers, the court and court personnel, certain trial-support personnel, a mediator and staff, or another person with the producing party’s written consent.

Before certain outside experts or consultants receive attorneys’-eyes-only materials, the disclosing party must provide information about the person’s identity, employment, consulting relationships, patent applications, and recent testimony. The producing party has 14 days to object for good cause. If the parties cannot resolve an objection, the objecting party has specified periods to seek relief from the court. Persons receiving protected material must sign an agreement to be bound by the protective order.

The order also provides procedures for challenging confidentiality designations. The parties must first confer in good faith. If they cannot agree, the receiving party may ask the court to rule on the designation. The material remains protected while the challenge is pending unless the designating party withdraws the designation or the court rules that the designation does not apply.

Other provisions address subpoenas, public filings, inadvertent production of privileged or work-product-protected material, inadvertent failures to designate material, unauthorized disclosure, final return or destruction of discovery materials, and discovery from experts or consultants. The order provides that producing privileged or work-product-protected documents does not waive the protection in this case or another federal or state proceeding. It also permits the court to impose sanctions for unauthorized use or disclosure and states that the Northern District of California retains jurisdiction for five years after final determination to resolve disputes under the order.

Ruling and effect

On September 13, 2019, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that the parties’ agreement be approved. The ruling entered discovery-confidentiality requirements; it did not resolve the merits of Zaragoza and Coyle’s claims against Apple Inc. The opinion text does not state the underlying claims or provide a merits ruling.