Optronic Technologies, Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd.

Background

The underlying antitrust action concerned alleged violations in the consumer telescope market. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for plaintiff and judgment creditor Optronic Technologies, Inc., also called Orion in the order. In related proposed class actions, direct and indirect purchasers of telescopes alleged that Celestron Acquisition LLC and others conspired to fix prices, divide the telescope market, and engage in other anticompetitive conduct.

During discovery in the related litigation, Celestron and the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs sought materials from Orion, including the trial record, deposition transcripts and exhibits, and other discovery exchanged in the underlying action. Orion agreed to produce responsive materials, but many were designated confidential or highly confidential under the protective order in the underlying case. That order limited use of the materials to prosecuting, defending, or trying to settle the underlying action and certain related disputes.

Ruling

The court provisionally granted the motion to modify the protective order so the requested discovery could be used in the related litigation. The court found sufficient overlap in the facts, parties, and issues to conclude that modification could avoid a substantial amount of duplicative discovery. It also concluded that confidentiality concerns could be addressed by applying the restrictions in the protective order to the related litigation. To the extent the motion sought permission for Celestron and the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) to request the modification, the court granted intervention.

The provisional order was stayed through August 12, 2021. By July 12, Orion was required to notify affected non-parties and file a certificate of service. Any non-party objecting to the proposed modification had to file a statement by July 28 describing the objections and their bases. If objections were filed, the stay would remain in effect until the court resolved them. If no objections were filed by the deadline, the stay would automatically be lifted and the proposed modified protective order would be entered.

The court stated that subject documents should, at a minimum, receive the same confidentiality designations used in the underlying action. It expressly did not decide whether the subpoenaed materials should or must be produced with those designations, and it did not resolve existing or potential disputes about the discoverability of specific materials in the related litigation. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi signed the order.