*1 On July 29, 2020, the parties filed a joint stipulation (“Joint Stip.”) regarding Defendants' Motion to De-Designate Documents. (“Motion”). (Dkt. Nos. 479, 481, 491).[1] On August 6, 2020, Defendants filed a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of their Motion. (Dkt. No. 493).[2] The Court finds this discovery dispute appropriate for resolution without a hearing. L.R. 7-15. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART.

A. Background

On November 9, 2018, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit, asserting claims for, inter alia, trade secret misappropriation, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. (Dkt. No. 1). On August 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which inter alia added claims against Defendant Space-Lok, Inc. for trade secret misappropriation. (Dkt. No. 231). On October 30, 2019, the Court denied Defendants' motions to dismiss portions of the Second Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 344).

This case arises from the alleged misappropriation of Plaintiff's trade secrets related to its SLEEVbolt®, an advanced-concept fastening system with critical applications in commercial and military aircraft. (Joint Stip. at 2; SAC at ¶ 1). The primary consumer of the SLEEVbolt® system is The Boeing Company, which has been Plaintiff's customer for more than 40 years. (SAC at ¶ 7). Defendant Briles Aerospace was founded by Defendant Michael Briles, who is a former employee of Plaintiff. (Joint Stip. at 2). After leaving Plaintiff, Briles worked for Defendant Space-Lok before founding his own company. (Id.). At Space-Lok, Briles worked with Kurt Thompson, who later left Space-Lok to rejoin Briles at Briles Aerospace. (Id. at 3).

B. Motion to De-Designate

Defendants contend that Plaintiff has improperly designated two documents as “Highly Confidential—Attorney's Eyes Only” under the Amended Protective Order. (Joint Stip. at 2). Specifically, Defendants seek to de-designate the SPS and Robert Biles Settlement Agreement and the Robert Briles Declaration. (Id. at 1; see Hefazi Decl. Exs. 1–2). They argue that these documents contain information that is “clearly not ‘Attorney's Eyes Only.’ ” (Joint Stip. at 2). Plaintiff appears to concede that portions of the documents are not “Highly Confidential” (Joint Stip. at 2, 5, 7, 22–23; Hefazi Decl. ¶ 7), but argues that the Amended Protective Order “does not require line-by-line designations” (Joint Stip. at 5, 14–15).

To the contrary, the Amended Protective Order clearly anticipates that only portions of information in documentary form would qualify for confidential protection. (Dkt. No. 223 (Amended Protective Order) at § V.2.a) (“If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).”). Similarly, if only a portion of information not in a documentary form warrants protection, “the Producing Party ... shall identify the protected portion(s).” (Id. § V.2.c). Moreover, the Amended Protective Order acknowledges that it “does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles.” (Id. § I.A). Plaintiff argues that construing the Amended Protective Order as requiring line by line designations “is inconsistent with other provisions regarding designations. As one example, for testimony given in depositions or at hearings, the designating party need only identify the pages with protected information ....” (Joint Stip. at 15) (citing Amended Protective Order § V.2.b). However, while the Amended Protective Order requires “the Designating Party [to] provide written notice and identification of the specific pages of the transcript” that are confidential, the Amended Protective Order does not proscribe line-by-line confidentiality designations of a deposition transcript. Indeed, allowing a party to shield entire pages of a deposition transcript behind a confidentiality designation merely because confidential information arbitrarily appears on the same printed page would be contrary to the “good cause” standard required for “preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) (requiring “good cause” to limit the disclosure of discovery); accord In re ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. CV 11-5379, 2014 WL 12577132, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2014). In sum, a party may not designate an entire document as “Highly Confidential” merely because portions of the document warrant this designation.[3]

*2 Plaintiff bears the initial burden of supporting its confidentiality designations. (Amended Protective Order § VI.3); see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178, 1181–82, 1184). Accordingly, Plaintiff shall in good faith determine which portions of the Settlement Agreement and Briles Declaration can be de-designated as “Highly Confidential.” For example, “statements about what Defendant Michael Briles allegedly discussed with former Defendant Robert Briles” (Joint Stip. at 2, 6) are clearly not “Highly Confidential.” Similarly, general information about the current litigation, positions held by Robert Briles and his brothers at PB Fasteners, public information about the history of PB Fasteners and the SLEEVbolt®, and other information that has been publicly disclosed (see id. at 6–9) are not entitled to “Highly Confidential” designations. If, after Plaintiff has revised its confidentiality designations, Defendants believe that additional portions should be de-designated, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith to resolve their dispute before raising the issue with the Court.

C. Conclusion

Defendants' Motion to De-Designate Documents [479] is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff shall de-designate those portions of SPS and Robert Biles Settlement Agreement and the Robert Briles Declaration that do not qualify for “Highly Confidential” protections. Defendants' Application to file under seal certain portions of their Supplemental Memorandum [494] is GRANTED. The following document shall be filed under seal: the redacted portions of the Supplemental Memorandum. The hearing set for August 20, 2020, is VACATED and taken off calendar.

The parties may avail themselves of the Court's informal discovery dispute resolution process to resolve any remaining discovery issues. (See Judge Sagar's Procedures).

IT IS SO ORDERED.