Parties and their counsel cannot make information “confidential” that is already publicly available, just because they follow the requirements of a Stipulated Confidentiality or Protective Order. That is what some parties and their counsel tried to do with an expert’s prior compensation information consisting of the expert’s declarations regarding compensation, case lists, invoices, and deposition testimony regarding compensation, in Parks v. Ethicon, Inc., No.: 20-CV-989-LL-RBB, 2022 WL 214753 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2022). The expert's compensation information had already been produced in other cases before this one.
The Magistrate Judge, the opposing parties, and in the end, the District Judge were having none of it as far as protecting the "Confidentiality" of such information:
The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Brooks and Defendants that Dr. Elliott’s prior compensation as an expert witness is not confidential and therefore not entitled to protection under the Protective Order. See July 29 Order at 7–8; Opp’n at 3–4, 6. Simply stated, Dr. Elliott’s prior expert compensation has been produced—without Dr. Elliott maintaining its confidentiality—in at least forty cases, (see ECF No. 18-1 ¶ 4; see also ECF No. 169-2), and even discussed in open court.
Parks, 2022 WL 214753, at *4.
For further research into Discovery Confidentiality, visit the Discovery Confidentiality page of my website.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2022 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments