Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc.

Background

Nicky Laatz and Zazzle, Inc. disputed whether Zazzle could restrict access to portions of the deposition transcript of Zazzle’s chief technology officer, Robert Beaver III. Before the deposition, the parties agreed to procedures for designating testimony as either “confidential” or “highly confidential – attorneys’ eyes only.” Under that agreement, the parties and their counsel could view confidential material, while only outside counsel could view highly confidential material. The agreement was not entered as a court order.

Zazzle designated portions of Beaver’s April 5, 2023 deposition as confidential and other portions as highly confidential. Laatz argued that Zazzle had over-designated the transcript, creating unnecessary burdens and expenses. Zazzle responded that it had designated only 6% of the nearly 200-page transcript and had good cause for each designation. The parties disagreed about portions of nine pages with confidential designations and 13 pages with highly confidential designations.

Court’s Analysis

Because Zazzle was seeking a protective order, it had to show particularized harm or prejudice from disclosure. The court found that declarations from Beaver and Ms. Larson adequately made that showing for purposes of exchanging information during discovery. The court noted that some designations might not withstand the more rigorous review applied to evidence submitted with a dispositive motion or at trial, but found Zazzle’s showing sufficient at the discovery stage.

The court then weighed Zazzle’s and Beaver’s private interests against the public’s and Laatz’s interests in disclosure. Laatz identified no public-health, public-safety, or other public-importance issue involving the designated testimony. The court considered whether restricting access would prejudice Laatz’s preparation of her case. Laatz acknowledged that she could access and discuss all confidential material with outside counsel, and she identified no prejudice from not having access to the highly confidential material. The court was also not persuaded that Zazzle’s limited designations created a genuine cause for concern about over-designation.

Ruling

The court found that the relevant factors favored protecting the testimony designated confidential and highly confidential under the parties’ agreement. For the same reasons, Judge Virginia K. Demarchi granted Zazzle’s administrative motion to file the disputed portions of Beaver’s deposition transcript under seal. The order addressed discovery confidentiality and sealing; it did not resolve the merits of Laatz’s underlying claims.