Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Two BioCorRx entities and two individual plaintiffs sued Calista Therapeutics, Inc., Trovex, Inc., Trovex BioTherapeutics, an individual defendant, and Doe defendants in the Central District of California. The order does not describe the underlying claims or the merits, so this article addresses only the discovery-confidentiality framework.
The parties stipulated to a protective order, and the court found good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The good cause statement anticipates discovery of trade secrets, customer and pricing lists, research, development, commercial and financial information, and private third-party information. It also records BioCorRx's allegation and contention that it competes in the same industry with Calista Therapeutics and the Trovex entities, and that disclosing sensitive marketing, strategy, cost, pricing, customer, and supplier information to the opposing parties themselves would pose a significant risk of injury. That contention is a party position recited in the order, not a finding by the court. Magistrate Judge John D. Early entered the order on October 27, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The order creates two designations. CONFIDENTIAL material may be shown to outside counsel, party officers, directors and employees (including house counsel) with a need to know, qualified experts, the court, court reporters, vendors and trial consultants who have signed the acknowledgment, authors and recipients, deposition witnesses under stated conditions, and agreed mediators. Party personnel must sign the acknowledgment before access. HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL–OUTSIDE COUNSEL'S EYES ONLY material, defined as extremely sensitive information whose disclosure to another party or non-party would create a substantial risk of serious harm not avoidable by less restrictive means, goes only to outside counsel, signed experts, neutrals, reporters, jury consultants, vendors, and authors or recipients, and may not be given to the receiving party or its officers, directors, or employees.
Protected material may be used only to prosecute, defend, or attempt to settle this action. Designations must be limited to qualifying material; mass or routinized designations are prohibited and clearly unjustified ones may draw sanctions. Challenges proceed through Local Rule 37 meet-and-confer and a joint stipulation, and the designating party bears the burden of persuasion; the material keeps its protection until the court rules. Before disclosure to an expert, the receiving party must serve a notice with specified information, and the designating party has ten court days to object. The order incorporates Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), so production of privileged material, inadvertent or otherwise, is not a waiver in this or any other federal or state proceeding.
The order does not authorize sealed filings; a party must obtain a court order under Local Civil Rule 79-5, showing good cause for non-dispositive motions and compelling reasons for dispositive motions or trial. By its terms it does not govern use of protected material at trial and does not extend beyond the commencement of trial, when designated material used as exhibits becomes presumptively public absent compelling reasons shown in advance to the trial judge. Within 60 days of a written request after final disposition, receiving parties must return or destroy protected material and certify, though counsel may keep archival copies. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the order, including through contempt, monetary sanctions, and injunctive relief, and the order may be modified later.
Key Takeaways
- The outside-counsel-only tier bars the receiving party and its officers, directors, and employees from seeing the most sensitive material, which in practice excludes in-house counsel.
- Designations must be made in good faith and limited to qualifying material, and the designating party carries the burden if a designation is challenged.
- The order itself contains a Rule 502(d) clause, so privileged material produced in this case is not waived in this or any other federal or state proceeding.
- Designating material confidential does not entitle a party to file it under seal; a separate Local Rule 79-5 application with evidentiary support is required.
- Experts may receive protected material only after signing the acknowledgment and surviving a ten-court-day objection window following written notice.
Why It Matters
This is a stipulated discovery order entered by a magistrate judge, not a merits ruling, and it carries no precedential weight. It decides no dispute over whether any particular document is confidential, and the competitor allegations it recites remain unproven.
What remains open is substantial: individual designations and challenges, any sealing motions, and the treatment of protected material at trial are all left for later rulings, and any person may seek modification. The order is useful mainly as an example of terms used in a dispute between alleged competitors, including an outside-counsel-only tier, an expert-disclosure objection procedure, an express Rule 502(d) provision, and a reminder that sealing requires a separate showing.