R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Pappas ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 R.R. DONNELLY & SONS COMPANY, No. 2:21-cv-00753-DAD-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 14 JOHN PAPPAS, III, et al. FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 15 Defendants. TO SEAL PORTIONS OF THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 16 (Doc. Nos. 71, 72) 17 MERILIZ INC., 18 Counter-claimants, 19 v. 20 R.R. DONNELLY & SONS COMPANY, 21 Counter-defendant. 22 23 This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to file a second 24 amended complaint and plaintiff’s unopposed request to seal the portions of its second amended 25 complaint that contain confidential, trade secrets—namely, identification of its customers and 26 their needs/preferences. (Doc. Nos. 71, 72.) The undersigned notes that the previously assigned 27 district judges granted plaintiff’s prior requests to seal essentially the same portions of its original 28 and first amended complaint, as well as the portions of its motion for contempt and defendants’ 1 opposition to that motion, which included the same customer identification information. (See 2 Doc. Nos. 7, 34, 50, 62.) The undersigned adopts the analysis in those previous orders because, 3 here too, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to prevent public disclosure of plaintiff’s 4 customer identity information. (See Doc. No. 62 at 2–3) (citing Abba Rubber Co. v. Seaquist, 235 5 Cal. App. 3d 1, 18 (1991) (“A customer list is one of the types of information which can qualify 6 as a trade secret.”)). Accordingly, the court will similarly grant plaintiff’s request to seal. 7 Next, plaintiff seeks leave from the court to file its second amended complaint. “A party 8 may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it or (B) if 9 the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service if a 10 responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is 11 earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Otherwise, a party must seek leave of court to amend a pleading 12 or receive the opposing party’s written consent. Id. 13 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that leave to amend pleadings “shall be 14 freely given when justice so requires.” Id. Nevertheless, leave to amend need not be granted 15 when the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces 16 an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile. See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W. Inc., 17 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir. 1999)). 18 “Prejudice to the opposing party is the most important factor.” Jackson v. Bank of Haw., 902 19 F.3d 1385, 1397 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research Inc., 401 U.S. 20 321, 330–31 (1971)). “The party opposing leave to amend bears the burden of showing 21 prejudice.” Serpa v. SBC Telecomms., 318 F. Supp. 2d 865, 870 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (citing DCD 22 Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987)). 23 Here, by filing a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a 24 second amended complaint, defendants have effectively provided plaintiff with their written 25 consent. (Doc. No. 73.) In addition, by not opposing plaintiff’s motion, defendants essentially 26 concede that they are not prejudiced by the court granting plaintiff leave to further amend its 27 complaint. Therefore, the court will grant plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended 28 complaint. 1 The parties also request that the court modify the scheduling order in this case because the 2 pleadings are not closed, and there is no pretrial conference or trial date set. (Doc. Nos. 71-1 at 9; 3 73 at 2.)1 The court finds that the parties have shown good cause to modify the scheduling order 4 not only because plaintiff will file its second amended complaint adding a new defendant PM 5 Packing (“PMP”), but also because plaintiff’s motion to strike and dismiss defendants’ 6 counterclaim (Doc. No. 38, filed November 24, 2021) remains pending before the court. 7 Accordingly, the court will modify the scheduling order to re-open discovery for a period 8 of three months, and that discovery shall be limited in scope to the issue of defendant PMP’s 9 liability. The re-opened period of discovery shall close on January 23, 2023. Discovery remains 10 closed as to defendants John Pappas III (“Pappas”) and Meriliz, Inc., dba Dome Printing 11 (“Dome”). The court will also set a new deadline for any party to file dispositive motions. Any 12 such dispositive motions shall be filed no later than March 6, 2023 and shall be noticed for 13 hearing on a date consistent with District Judge Dale A. Drozd’s Standing Order (Doc. No. 75) 14 and on a date no more than 60 days after the filing of the motion. 15 For the reasons explained above: 16 1. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Doc. 17 No. 71) is granted; 18 2. Plaintiff’s unopposed request to redact and seal (Doc. No. 72) is granted; 19 a. Within seven (7) days from the date of entry of this order, plaintiff shall 20 file the redacted version of its second amended complaint on the docket; 21 b. Within seven (7) days from the date of entry of this order, plaintiff shall 22 also send the unredacted version of the second amended complaint via 23 email to and file an unredacted version under seal to 24 ApprovedSealed@caed.uscourts.gov for filing under seal on the docket; 25 and 26 27 1 Although defendants purport to impose several conditions regarding the extent of discovery and the filing of dispositive motions (Doc. No. 73 at 2), the court does not find it necessary or 28 appropriate to impose any limitations other than those set forth in this order. 1 3. The scheduling order in this case is now modified as follows: 2 a. Discovery is re-opened, limited to the issue of PMP’s liability, and shall be 3 completed no later than January 23, 2023; and 4 b. All dispositive motions shall be filed no later than March 6, 2023 and shall 5 be noticed for hearing on a date consistent with District Judge Dale A. 6 Drozd’s Standing Order (Doc. No. 75) and on a date no more than 60 days 7 after the filing of the motion. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ October 21, 2022 Dal A. 2, aol 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28