Jones v. PGA Tour, Inc.

Background

LIV moved to amend the protective order governing materials produced in this litigation by the PGA Tour, PGA of America, the United States Golf Association, Augusta National Golf Club, and Clout Public Affairs, LLC. LIV sought permission for its counsel to retain copies of protected materials because counsel had received Notices of Pending Subpoenas Duces Tecum connected to another action in Florida state court. LIV stated that it had been informed that the notices triggered an obligation to retain the identified documents. Its supporting declaration expressly did not take a position on whether Florida law required retention or whether the notices were proper.

The protective order requires a receiving party to return or destroy protected material received in the litigation. It also limits use of protected material to this action and contemplates use in other proceedings only pursuant to a subpoena or court order. The responding parties opposed modification. They argued that the protective order was based on their reliance on those limits and that modification was unnecessary because the parties could address the proper scope of discovery in the Florida action. The PGA Tour also stated that it had notified the Florida court that the entirety of its production in this action was being preserved.

Court’s analysis

The court first observed that LIV had brought its request as an administrative motion, even though it sought relief from a protective order. The court stated that the proper procedure would have been a joint submission under the assigned judge’s Civil and Discovery Referral Matters Standing Order. Because no responding party raised the procedural issue, the court accepted the filing as a discovery dispute and cautioned the parties to comply with the Civil Local Rules and standing orders in future filings.

On the substance of the request, the court recognized that sharing discovery between actions may promote efficiency. It stated, however, that a court must weigh the opposing parties’ reliance interests against the interest in avoiding duplicative discovery. The court found that the responding parties had relied on the protective order, including its use limitations, when producing documents to LIV. The court also found that LIV had not shown why litigants in Florida needed to obtain the documents from LIV rather than directly from the responding parties through appropriate proceedings in that forum.

The court further found that keeping the protective order’s return-or-destroy requirement in place would protect the order’s integrity. It concluded that the responding parties’ reliance outweighed LIV’s limited interest in amending the order.

Disposition

The court denied LIV’s motion to amend the protective order. The opinion does not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice. Judge Susan Van Keulen resolved the matter without oral argument.