Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Clean Crawl, Inc. v. Crawl Space Cleaning Pros, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

July 3, 2019

CLEAN CRAWL, INC., Plaintiff,


          BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge.

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Crawl Space Cleaning Pros' (“CSCP”) motion for protective order, Dkt. 109, and Plaintiff Clean Crawl, Inc.'s (“CCI”) cross-motion for protective order, Dkt. 113. The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants CSCP's motion in part and grants CCI's motion in part and denies it in part for the reasons stated herein.


         This suit arises from copyright and trademark disputes between CCI and CSCP, two businesses which clean attics and crawl spaces and provide pest exclusion services for homes in the Western Washington area. See Dkt. 48 at 7; Dkt. 39 at 2.

         On January 18, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion regarding a protective order, which disputed whether both “Confidential” and “Attorneys Eyes Only” (“AEO”) levels of protection as set out in this district's model protective order. Dkt. 68. On January 21, 2019, CCI filed an additional reply. Dkt. 72. On February 14, 2019, the Court denied the motion, finding that “both parties' proposed submissions are deficient because they fail to include separate levels of protection for confidential documents.” Dkt. 76 at 1. The Court directed the parties to agree on language for an AEO level of protection and a “confidential level of protection, ” and directed the parties to follow the procedure outlined in the model protective order if one party objects to the other's designation. Id. at 1-2.

         On May 30, 2019, CSCP filed a motion for a protective order. Dkt. 109. On June 5, 2019, CCI filed a response and cross-motion for a protective order. Dkt. 113. On June 7, 2019, CSCP replied. Dkt. 115.


         The parties continue to dispute the proper characterization of confidential information and AEO information, the necessity of a provision regarding disclosure of information to expert witnesses or consultants, and the necessity of a provision regarding third-party information. CSCP explains that the parties have met and conferred in good faith and been unable to come to an agreement on the terms of a protective order. Dkt. 109 at 1.

         “Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), the Court, upon motion and a showing that he parties have conferred in good faith, may issue a protective order.” Avocent Redmond Corp. v. Rose Electronics, 242 F.R.D. 574, 575 (W.D. Wash. 2007). Under the Local Rules, parties are encouraged to use this district's model protective order. Local Rules, W.D. Wash. LCR 26(c)(2).

         A. Confidential and AEO Designations

         Both parties want to include a term defining the AEO category but disagree on what that definition should be. The Court's prior order directed the parties to negotiate an agreement on the AEO and “confidential” category definitions, Dkt. 76, but the parties were unable to do so. “The law . . . gives district courts broad latitude to grant protective orders to prevent disclosure of materials for many types of information, including, but not limited to, trade secrets or other confidential research, development or commercial information.” Cabell v. Zorro Productions, Inc., 294 F.R.D. 604, 610 (W.D. Wash. 2013) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002)).

         CSCP suggests that technical specifications or schematics should be designated confidential, and “(a) Non-public customer information; (b) Customers and customer lists; (c) Non-public arrangements and agreements with clients and merchants; (d) Information regarding vendors, suppliers, and pricing; (e) Information regarding current discussions with third parties concerning potential joint ventures or other strategic collaborations; (f) Marketing plans and techniques, current or future business plans, forecasts, and strategies; (g) Research and development materials concerning unreleased products, services, or product development; (h) Unreleased corporate and financial data (including sales, shipping, profits, inventories, costs, taxes, and similar documents); and (i) Trade secrets” be designated AEO. Dkt. 111 at 5. CCI counters that most of these categories should fall under the “confidential” designation and should not be designated AEO unless the producing party determines in good faith that the document “contain[s] information of a competitively or commercially sensitive, proprietary, financial, or trade secret nature, or [] involve[s] or implicate[s] privacy interests” and also determines in good faith that “disclosure of such information to opposing parties may be detrimental to the producing party's business interests.” Dkt. 113-1 at 6.

         The Court finds CSCP's proposed categories reasonable given that the parties are direct competitors, provided that, as another Washington district court wisely instructed: “[t]he Court expects the parties to both use and challenge AEO designations sparingly and only where necessary in order to minimize onerous litigation.” Cabell, 294 F.R.D. at 610. Even so, a more restrictive protective order will provide confidence that neither party is able to secure a greater competitive advantage by obtaining its direct competitor's confidential business information improperly or unfairly through this litigation.

         B. Experts ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.