SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

Case 2:07-cv-00660-10,10-EF13 Document 50 Filed 000/2008 Page 3 of 5 1 pesticides used at Lima Ranch from 1990 to present.' See Declaration of Stephen M. Siptroth 2 ("Siptroth Decl."), Exh. 24. Defendants object that the interrogatories seek irrelevant and 3 confidential, trade secret information. 4 Defendants' relevancy objection is overruled. These interrogatories are reasonably 5 calculated to lead to admissible evidence bearing on the claims and defenses in this action and 6 the information requested is relevant to that purpose. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). As explained 7 above, plaintiff's theory is that these substances will be found together with nitrates in the 8 allegedly contaminated groundwater, thereby providing a link to the alleged source of the 9 contamination. Such evidence would provide direct support of plaintiff's claims. 10 Likewise defendants' objection that the interrogatories call for trade secret information is 11 overruled. While Rule 26(c)(1) contemplates a protective order to protect confidential, 12 proprietary information, the party seeking the order must first establish that the information 13 sought, in fact, qualifies for such protection. 14 "Trade secret or commercially sensitive information must be important proprietary 15 information and the party challenging the [discovery] must make a strong showing that it has 16 historically sought to maintain the confidentiality of this information." Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 17 234 F.R.D. 674, 684 (N.D. Cal. 2006). "Where a business is the party seeking protection, it will 18 have to show that disclosure would cause significant harm to its competitive and financial 19 position. That showing requires specific demonstrations of fact, supported where possible by 20 affidavits and concrete examples, rather than broad, conclusory allegations of harm." Contratto 21 v. Ethicon, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 304, 307-08 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Deford v. Schmid Prods. Co., 22 23 ' In the joint statement, defendants address outstanding third party subpoenas and requests for production of documents served by plaintiff. Plaintiff has not moved to enforce the 24 subpoenas or discovery requests, and, in lieu of compelling responses, served the five interrogatories that are the subject of plaintiff's motion to compel. In the joint statement, 25 plaintiff represents that he has effectively withdrawn that discovery and substituted it with the five interrogatories. See Joint Statement, 33:13-23. Accordingly, the court finds that the 26 subpoenas and requests for documents are not presently at issue. 3