Rojas v. Bosch Solar Energy Corporation
- Beth Freeman
- 5:18-cv-05841
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Rojas v. Bosch Solar Energy, Judge Freeman granted in part plaintiffs’ request for relief and referred a confidentiality dispute for further proceedings.
Steve R. Rojas, Andrea N. Rojas, Bosch Solar Energy Corporation, and the parties’ handling of photographs and inspection or testing records under the protective order were affected; the confidentiality issue was sent back to Judge Cousins for further proceedings.
What happened
Steve R. Rojas and Andrea N. Rojas asked the court to change a magistrate judge’s order requiring certain photographs and inspection or testing records of Bosch solar panels to be treated as confidential under the case’s protective order. They argued Bosch had not shown the required good cause for that restriction.
The court found that the magistrate judge’s order did not explain whether Bosch had met its burden. Bosch also said it had not been given an opportunity to make that showing because the hearing where it would have done so was canceled.
In Rojas v. Bosch Solar Energy Corporation, Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the motion for relief in part by referring the confidentiality issue to Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins for further proceedings. The order did not decide whether the confidentiality requirement should ultimately remain in place.
The detailed version
- Rojas v. Bosch Solar Energy Corporation · No. 5:18-cv-05841
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 20, 2020
Background
Plaintiffs Steve R. Rojas and Andrea N. Rojas moved for relief from a nondispositive order issued by Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. The order required the parties’ Agreement for Inspection and Retention of Solar Modules to designate photographs and testing or inspection records concerning Bosch solar panels as “Confidential Information” under the existing protective order.
Plaintiffs argued that Bosch Solar Energy Corporation had not shown the “good cause” required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) for imposing the confidentiality requirement. Plaintiffs asked the court either to vacate Judge Cousins’ order or to refer the matter back to him for further proceedings.
Review standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a district court reviews a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order to determine whether it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Factual findings receive clear-error review, while legal conclusions are reviewed to determine whether they are contrary to law.
Discussion
The court noted that Judge Cousins’ order did not expressly state that Bosch had met its burden to show good cause. The district court therefore asked Bosch to identify where in the record it had made that showing. Bosch responded that it had not been given the opportunity to meet its burden because the hearing at which it intended to do so had been vacated. Bosch asked that the matter be referred to Judge Cousins for a good-cause hearing.
The court concluded that referral was appropriate. Without an explanation for Judge Cousins’ ruling, meaningful review was not possible. The court also determined that further proceedings appeared necessary because Bosch claimed it had been denied an opportunity to present its good-cause showing. Judge Cousins was left to decide whether a hearing was needed or whether the parties’ positions could be presented adequately in written submissions.
Disposition
Judge Beth Labson Freeman’s order granted in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Order of Magistrate Judge on Disputed Language for Solar Module Protocol, specifically by referring the matter to Judge Cousins for further proceedings. The order terminated ECF 139. It did not resolve the underlying confidentiality issue.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.