Sanchez v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Sanchez v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
2024 WL 5119777 (S.D. Fla. 2024)
July 3, 2024
Sanchez, Eduardo I., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The defendant CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp. filed a motion for a protective and confidentiality order to prevent the public disclosure of two documents related to their contract with Home Depot and a safety data sheet from their supplier. The court granted the motion by default as the plaintiff did not respond, and ordered CTS to file a proposed protective order. CTS has also agreed to produce the documents under the protective order.
YINDRA RODRIGUEZ SANCHEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., and CTS CEMENT MANUFACTURING CORP., Defendants
v.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., and CTS CEMENT MANUFACTURING CORP., Defendants
CASE NO. 23-23124-CIV-MARTINEZ/SANCHEZ
United States District Court, S.D. Florida
Entered on FLSD Docket July 03, 2024
Sanchez, Eduardo I., United States Magistrate Judge
Order on Motion for Protective Order
*1 This matter is before the Court on Defendant CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp.’s (“CTS”) Motion for Protective and Confidentiality Order (ECF No. 25).[1] Plaintiff has not responded to CTS's motion. After careful review of the motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and the applicable law, and otherwise being fully advised in the premises, the Court hereby GRANTS CTS's Motion for Protective and Confidentiality Order (ECF No. 25).
I. Procedural And Factual Background
In this action, Plaintiff seeks damages from Defendants Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (“Home Depot”) and CTS in connection with injuries that she allegedly suffered while obtaining a product that was allegedly manufactured, distributed, and sold by CTS at a Home Depot location in Miami, Florida. See ECF No. 1 at 3-4, 13-31. The parties have been engaging in discovery. On May 15, 2024, CTS filed the instant motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G), seeking to protect from public disclosure two documents that it identified in its discovery responses but that it withheld from production and included in its privilege log. Those documents are:
a. CTS Cement's contract with Home Depot which contains a confidentiality provision prohibiting disclosure.b. Safety Data Sheet from CTS Cement's supplier whose name and identifying information will be disclosed upon entry of a Protective and Confidentiality Order as it is confidential business information.
ECF No. 25 at ¶ 3 (“Withheld Documents”). CTS is prepared to disclose the documents to Plaintiff, but it seeks a Protective and Confidentiality Order because public disclosure of the Home Depot contract would “violate its contract with a major client and potentially allow competitors to identify trade secrets.” Id. at ¶ 5. According to CTS, the “the terms of its agreement are proprietary and confidential business information.” Id. at 4. Likewise, CTS explains that it “obtains certain portions of its product from a manufacturer and identifying that manufacturer in public records would allow its competitors to identify proprietary confidential and business information.” Id. CTS argues that public disclosure of the Safety Data Sheet would disclose its manufacturer and thereby “allow competitors to impact the business practices of CTS Cement and potentially allow competitors [to] identify trade secrets.” Id. at ¶ 6.
Plaintiff has not responded to CTS's motion nor moved to compel CTS to produce the Withheld Documents.
II. Legal Background
Pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1), “[a] party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Under the rule, “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from ... (G) requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G).
*2 Except in certain circumstances not present here, Local Rule 7.1(c) requires each party opposing a motion to file an opposing memorandum of law no later than fourteen (14) days after service of the motion. S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(c)(1). Failure to file a memorandum in response to a motion “may be deemed sufficient cause for granting the motion by default.” Id.; see also, e.g., In re Oxbow Carbon LLC, Case No. 14-80502-MC-DIMITROULEAS/SNOW, 2014 WL 12862276, at *3 (S.D. Fla. May 21, 2014) (invoking Local Rule 7.1(c) to grant by default a third party's motion to quash or alternatively for protective order regarding a subpoena to testify). The undersigned's Discovery Procedures, moreover, allow parties only five (5) business days to respond to discovery motions. See Discovery Procedures for Magistrate Judge Sanchez § I(B), https://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/sites/flsd/files/Discovery Procedures for Judge Sanchez.pdf (“Discovery Procedures”); S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(g)(1) (providing that an assigned judge's discovery procedures control in discovery disputes).
III. Analysis
Here, CTS filed its motion on May 15, 2024. In that motion, CTS has articulated grounds to protect the Withheld Documents from public disclosure because public disclosure would reveal trade secrets and identify proprietary confidential and business information to CTS's competitors. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G); Corcel Corp. v. Ferguson Enters., Inc., 291 F.R.D. 680, 681 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (granting motion for protective order under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) because, inter alia, the moving party “demonstrated that it would likely suffer economic harm if certain documents involving trade secrets or commercial information entered the public realm”). Plaintiff had until May 22, 2024, to file a response to CTS's motion, see Discovery Procedures § I(B), but Plaintiff failed to respond in any manner and has not in any way challenged CTS's assertions.[2] Plaintiff's failure to respond permits, and under the facts presented warrants, the granting of CTS's motion by default under the Local Rules. See In re Oxbow Carbon LLC, 2014 WL 12862276, at *3 (citing S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(c)).
Accordingly, because of Plaintiff's failure to respond, and for good cause shown, CTS's Motion for Protective and Confidentiality Order (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court hereby ORDERS AND ADJUDGES as follows:
- Defendant CTS's Motion for Protective and Confidentiality Order, ECF No. 25, is GRANTED.
- No later than Wednesday, July 10, 2024, CTS shall file a proposed protective order addressing the contract and the safety data sheet that are the subject of the Motion for Protective and Confidentiality Order and shall email a copy of the proposed protective order, in Microsoft Word format, to sanchez@flsd.uscourts.gov.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 3rd day of July, 2024.
Footnotes
The Honorable Jose E. Martinez referred this case to the undersigned for discovery matters. ECF No. 22.
The Court additionally notes that, although CTS did not produce the Withheld Documents and instead listed them on a privilege log, Plaintiff has never moved to compel CTS to produce the Withheld Documents. While it appears that the time for Plaintiff to move to compel may have passed, see S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(g), CTS has represented that it will produce the Withheld Documents to Plaintiff under a protective and confidentiality order. ECF No. 25 at 2, 5. CTS will be held to that representation.