Cojocaru v. Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al

1
3:24-cv-01770-W-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RADU COJOCARU, an Individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
MERCK SHARP & DOHME LLC,
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:24-cv-01770-W-KSC
ORDER GRANTING IN-PART AND
DENYING IN-PART DEFENDANT’S
EX 	PARTE 	MOTION 	FOR
RECONSIDERATION RE 37 ORDER
[DKT. NO. 42]
Before the Court is defendant’s Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration re 37 Order
(the “Ex Parte Motion”). Dkt. No. 42. The Court received the parties’ Joint Supplemental
Briefing Regarding Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration (“Joint Briefing”)
on October 24, 2025. Dkt. No. 63. The disputes relating to all documents at-issue in the Ex
Parte Motion were either resolved informally by the parties’ meet and confer efforts or by
the present Order.
I. 	Background
a. 	Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion
The subject of defendant’s Ex Parte Motion [Dkt. No. 42] is the Court’s June 30,
2025, Order re Joint Discovery Statement (the “June 30 Order”) [Dkt. No. 37] resolving a
discovery dispute between the parties. This discovery dispute was first brought to the
Court’s attention on May 13, 2025, when the parties lodged a Joint Discovery Statement
Case 3:24-cv-01770-W-KSC Document 66 Filed 11/24/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 10

2
3:24-cv-01770-W-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
wherein plaintiff alleged that the defendant was improperly withholding documents. Dkt.
No. 24. Following arguments presented by both parties at a discovery hearing on May 16,
2025, the Court ordered defendant to produce all at-issue trade secret documents subject to
the proper confidentiality designation and redactions available under the Operative
Protective Order. Dkt. No. 34 at 24. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court held that
defendant was “not obligated to produce information that contains highly sensitive research
data. If it includes names, produce that information but not the nature of the [‘]secret
formula to Coke[’] documents.” Id. at 24-25. Pursuant to the May 16, 2025, Order,
defendant made a supplemental production on May 28. Dkt. No. 31 at 2.
On June 26, 2025, the parties filed another joint discovery statement in which
plaintiff challenged defendant’s redactions to produced documents. Dkt. No. 31.1 Plaintiff
specifically alleged that of the 1,027 pages of documents produced on May 28, 2025, “583
[of the documents were] almost entirely redacted.” Id. at 2. Defendant responded that it
“made a good faith effort to comply with the Court’s instructions … [but] Merck’s highly
proprietary trade secret information remain[ed] redacted.” Id.
On June 30, 2025, the Court ordered “defendant to produce all the discovery at issue,
unredacted and designated FOR COUNSEL ONLY, within 15 days of this Order.” Dkt.
No. 37 at 3. Shortly after, defendant filed its Ex Parte Motion seeking reconsideration of
the Court’s June 30, 2025, Order. Dkt. No. 42. In light of the Ex Parte Motion, on July 14,
2025, the Court stayed the June 30, 2025, Order, and directed the parties to meet and confer
to determine whether the existing Protective Order was sufficient, or if modification was
needed to “mollify defendant’s concerns about potential misappropriation of its purported
trade secrets.” Dkt. No. 43. Shortly thereafter, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion
to Amend the Protective Order. Dkt. No. 51.
/ / /
1 	The Court accepted this filing despite the fact that Judge Crawford’s Chamber Rules
require all discovery disputes be lodged with the Court. Dkt. No. 35.
Case 3:24-cv-01770-W-KSC Document 66 Filed 11/24/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 10

3
3:24-cv-01770-W-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On August 8, 2025, the Court held another discovery hearing on the documents still
in dispute following the parties’ July meet and confer conference. Dkt. No. 54. After the
hearing, the Court ordered defendant to “make the at-issue ‘CONFIDENTIAL FOR
COUNSEL ONLY’ designated documents—which were the subject of the Court’s June
30, 2025, Order re Joint Discovery Statement [Doc. No. 37]—available for plaintiff’s
counsel’s review on August 12, 2025.” Id. Pursuant to the Court’s Order and subsequent
instruction, the parties lodged joint statements with the Court providing updates on the
status of the discovery dispute.
b. The Three Remaining Disputed Documents
After nearly six months of disputes related to more than a thousand pages of
documents, only five pages from three documents remain in dispute. Defendant lodged the
documents containing the at-issue pages with the Court for in-camera review on October
10, 	2025. 	Dkt. 	No. 	62. 	The 	disputed 	pages 	bear 	the 	following 	bates 	numbers:
MERCK005251-5252, MERCK005370-5371, and MERCK005368.2
i. 	MERCK005251-5252
MERCK005251-5252 	consists 	of 	two 	pages 	from 	a 	29-page 	PowerPoint
presentation dated February 2024. While plaintiff’s name is included once in the
PowerPoint on MERCK005269, the redactions on that page are not disputed. On the
disputed pages, MERCK005251-5252, defendant redacted as “Trade Secret Information”
all text except the titles of each PowerPoint slide. “The redacted slides contain projected
headcount, budgets, and forecasts for programs Merck acquired from Prometheus for
2023–2025.” Dkt. No. 63 at 73.
/ / /
2 	The disputed documents have been produced multiple times. The bates numbers
indicated here reflect the most recent production of the documents.
3 	All citations to pages numbers are to the docket page number, not the document’s
listed page number.
Case 3:24-cv-01770-W-KSC Document 66 Filed 11/24/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 10

4
3:24-cv-01770-W-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff describes the redacted text in MERCK005251-5252 as “information
discussing business planning” that can be used to explain why he was “wrongfully”
terminated by defendant. Id. at 4. 	Further, plaintiff states that the disputed pages do not
constitute trade secret information because they contain no “scientific or technical
information”. Id. 4.
Defendant labels the redacted text as trade secret information because “[t]his non-
public information reflects Defendant’s internal strategic planning and business priorities
and, if disclosed, would give competitors insight into Defendant’s future initiatives based
on 	its 	projected 	allocation 	of 	resources, 	allowing 	them 	to 	anticipate 	Defendant’s
development 	strategies, 	adjust 	their 	own 	plans, 	and 	capture 	market 	share 	before
Defendant’s initiatives are realized.” Id. at 7.
ii. 	MERCK005370-5371
MERCK005370-5371 is a two-page email from plaintiff to his supervisors that
contains four discrete and limited redactions. The email was sent during plaintiff’s
employment and relates to “his alleged conflict of interest, his past accomplishments, and
his search for work on a new project.” Id. at 5. In discussing his “past accomplishments”,
plaintiff also briefly mentions specific methodologies and outcomes from work he had
and/or planned to perform as an employee of defendant.
Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to production of an unredacted version of this email
because “[n]othing in the email remotely approaches ‘the Coke formula’ … 	[and] the
continued redactions by Merck make the email difficult to understand.” Id.
Defendant represents that the redactions are limited to the “proprietary methodology
that Plaintiff worked on during his employment.” Id. at 8. Defendant further states that
“[t]he redactions are [] consistent with the Court’s order, and do not affect the readability
or substance of the email, which has otherwise been produced in full.” Id.
iii. 	MERCK005368
MERCK005368 is one page from a 9-page PowerPoint presentation. Plaintiff’s
name appears on MERCK005363, which is not in dispute, entirely unredacted, and
Case 3:24-cv-01770-W-KSC Document 66 Filed 11/24/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 10

5
3:24-cv-01770-W-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
designated as confidential. MERCK005368 “contains a list of roles that were displaced
within the company. Although the list does not include employee names, it identifies each
displaced role by job site and includes additional details such as job level and role
description.” 	Id. 	at 	9. 	While 	designated 	as 	“Confidential 	– 	For 	Counsel 	Only,”
MERCK005368 contains no redactions.
Plaintiff argues he is entitled to the production of MERCK005368 in its unredacted
form. However, MERCK005368 has no redactions, thus, plaintiff already possesses that
which 	he 	seeks. 	Plaintiff 	makes 	no 	additional 	arguments 	contesting 	defendant’s
confidentiality designation of MERCK005368. See id. at 2-5.
II. 	Legal Standard
The Court has broad discretion to manage discovery. See U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co.
v. Lee Inv. LLC, 641 F.3d 1126, 1136 n.10 (9th Cir. 2011) (“District courts have wide
latitude in controlling discovery, and their rulings will not be overturned in the absence of
a clear abuse of discretion.”); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the
needs of the case.” Information need not be admissible to be discoverable. Id. In the
discovery context, information is relevant if it relates to “any matter that bears on, or that
reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the
case.” 	In 	re 	Williams-Sonoma, 	Inc., 	947 	F.3d 	535, 	539 	(9th 	Cir. 	2020) 	(quoting
Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 350-51 (1978)).
While broad, the scope of discovery is not unlimited. See ATS Prods., Inc. v.
Champion Fiberglass, Inc., 309 F.R.D. 527, 531 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“Relevancy, for the
purposes of discovery, is defined broadly, although it is not without ultimate and necessary
boundaries.”) Relevant discovery must also be “proportional to the needs of the case ….”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). To determine whether discovery is proportional, the Court
evaluates “the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy,
the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance
Case 3:24-cv-01770-W-KSC Document 66 Filed 11/24/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 10

6
3:24-cv-01770-W-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
“The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its request
satisfies the relevance requirement of Rule 26.” Sanchez Y Martin, S.A. de C.V. v. Dos
Amigos, Inc., No. 17CV1943-LAB (LL), 2019 WL 581715 at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2019).
In turn, the party resisting the discovery has the burden to show that the discovery is
objectionable by “clarifying, explaining, and supporting [their] objections based on
relevance and privilege.” Mahil v. Option Care Enters., Inc., No. 20CV1559-BEN-MDD,
2021 WL 2550084 (S.D. Cal. June 21, 2021) (internal quotations omitted) (citing
DIRECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455, 458 (C.D. Cal 2002); Blankenship v. Hearst
Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975)).
III. 	Analysis
In the Joint Briefing, plaintiff seeks to compel defendant to produce the unredacted
versions of MERCK005251-5252, MERCK005370-5371, and MERCK005368. The Court
will analyze the merits of plaintiff’s arguments and defendant’s responses below.
a. 	Plaintiff is Entitled to Unredacted Versions of MERCK005251-5252
Plaintiff is entitled to discovery of defendant’s business planning information
because it is relevant to his claim of alleged wrongful termination. Plaintiff alleges that the
redacted business planning information—defendant’s plans to “reduce headcount”—in
MERCK005251-5252 shows that defendant no longer had a need for plaintiff as an
employee which explains the real reason why plaintiff was “wrongfully” terminated. Dkt.
No. 63 at 3.
Defendant argues its redactions were proper because this information is not relevant
to any theory of termination that plaintiff alleges in the operative complaint. Id. at 6-7
(“Only recently has Plaintiff shifted his position, asserting a new theory” of wrongful
termination “not alleged in the operative complaint ….”) Id. at 6. The Court does not find
defendant’s argument persuasive because it was on notice of plaintiff’s general claim of
wrongful termination. See Stephenson v. California, 761 F. Supp. 3d 1242, 1264 (C.D. Cal.
Case 3:24-cv-01770-W-KSC Document 66 Filed 11/24/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
6 of 10

7
3:24-cv-01770-W-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2025) (“A party need not plead specific legal theories in the complaint, so long as the other
side receives notice as to what is at issue in the case.”) (quoting Am. Timber & Trading Co.
v. First Nat. Bank of Oregon, 690 F.2d 781, 786 (9th Cir. 1982)). Plaintiff is entitled to
discover whether defendant’s efforts to reduce headcount drove their decision to terminate
him. Thus, plaintiff is entitled to discovery of defendant’s business planning information
because it is relevant to why plaintiff was terminated. Moreover, this discovery is
proportional to the needs of the case. The information relates directly to plaintiff’s claim
of wrongful termination, is only available to defendant, and the burden on defendant to
produce the information without redactions is minimal.
Defendant also attempted to justify these redactions by arguing that the information
shows “internal strategic planning and business priorities [that], if disclosed[,] …” could
lead to competitive harm. Id. at 6. While this argument might make sense in the absence of
a protective order, it ignores the fact the parties entered into a Protective Order that governs
the production of all information exchanged in this litigation. Dkt. No. 51. The Court will
not assume the plaintiff will disseminate information marked as confidential in violation
of the Protective Order. Defendant is free to designate documents as “Confidential” or
“Confidential – For Counsel Only” as it sees fit, and in accordance with the Protective
Order. Defendant is ordered to re-produce MERCK005251-5252 with new Bates numbers
without redactions.
b. Defendant’s Redactions of MERCK005370-5371 Are Limited and Comply
with the Court’s Order
Defendant’s redactions of an email between plaintiff and his former bosses are
limited to information primarily detailing the methodology that he used on projects while
employed at Merck. Plaintiff suggests that the redacted information in MERCK005370-
5371 is relevant to his claims and defenses because the email relates to “his alleged conflict
of interest, his past accomplishments, and his search for work on a new project.” Dkt. No.
64 at 4. Plaintiff goes on to argue that the redacted information does not show the secret
Case 3:24-cv-01770-W-KSC Document 66 Filed 11/24/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
7 of 10

8
3:24-cv-01770-W-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“Coke Formula” and that the redactions make the email difficult to read. Id. The Court
disagrees.
After lengthy discussion with the parties during the May 16, 2025, discovery
hearing, the Court held that defendant’s “methodology is not subject to production[]”
because it is not relevant to any claims or defenses asserted. Dkt. No. 34 at 27. In plaintiff’s
counsel’s own words, “we’re only talking about did he work on Coke? Did he work on
Diet Coke? Was it Mountain Dew? It’s not like: Working on Coke, he did this, he did that,
he put this in the formula.” Id. at 28. In other words, discovery related to the substance of
plaintiff’s work—the methodologies and ideas he implemented—is not relevant to
plaintiff’s claims and defenses. Here, defendant’s redactions are limited to information that
amounts to “methodology”. In a declaration signed under penalty of perjury, Merck’s Vice
President and Head of Data, AI Genome Sciences Iya Khalil explained that “[t]he limited
redactions applied to this email protect highly sensitive information describing Merck’s
scientific approach, specific research results, and potential future applications of the same
methodology.” Dkt. No. 63-1 at 2-3. After conducting an in-camera review, the Court
arrives at the same conclusion: the redacted phrases describe methodology. What is more,
defendant left the names of projects discussed in the email unredacted, providing plaintiff
with exactly what he asked for during the May 16, 2025, discovery hearing. Thus, plaintiff
failed to meet his burden of establishing relevance under FRCP 26.
The Court finds defendants redactions proper and in compliance with this Court’s
previous Order. Sanchez Y Martin, S.A. de C.V., 2019 WL 581715 at *3; see also, De
Portillo v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 3:23-CV-00978-WQH-VET, 2024 WL 5048901 at *9
(S.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2024) (“Based on an in-camera review of the County’s proposed
redactions, the Court finds such redactions properly redact limited, sensitive, and/or
irrelevant information.”)
The Court further concludes that the redactions do not make the email difficult to
read or understand as they are extremely limited and should have minimal, if any, impact
on plaintiff’s ability to comprehend the document. The case law plaintiff appears to rely
Case 3:24-cv-01770-W-KSC Document 66 Filed 11/24/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
8 of 10

9
3:24-cv-01770-W-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
on to support his argument is unpersuasive and distinguishable. For example, plaintiff
quotes the court’s analysis in Doe v. Trump, which analyzes defendant’s decision to redact
information it unilaterally deemed to be irrelevant. 329 F.R.D. 262, 276 (W.D. Wash.
2018). The court therein also held that “Defendants have not identified any prejudice that
might result from the production of the redacted material here.” Id. As applied to the current
case, the parties agreed that the methodologies plaintiff used on his projects are not within
the scope of the discovery and defendant outlined the harm that could result from the
production of the redacted material. Dkt. No. 63-1 at 2-3. Plaintiff’s rhetoric that
defendant’s redactions would “breed suspicion” are baseless because plaintiff’s counsel
conducted an in-person review of all documents in their unredacted form and is otherwise
aware of the content of the redacted phrases. Dkt. No. 63 at 4 (remarking that defendant’s
earlier production of the document contained lesser redactions.)
Accordingly, the Court finds that defendant’s redactions of MERCK005370-5371
are limited to methodology, which is not subject to production, and therefore are valid.
c. 	Plaintiff 	Does 	Not 	Dispute 	Defendant’s 	Confidentiality 	Designation 	of
MERCK005368
Lastly, the Court need not conduct any analysis on MERCK005368 because
defendant already produced the document in its unredacted form. Plaintiff does not dispute
the “Confidential – For Counsel Only” confidentiality designation in the papers presented
and defendant’s provided reasoning for this designation is persuasive. Thus, the Court finds
defendant’s confidentiality designation of MERCK005368 is valid.
IV. 	Conclusion
The Court issues the following Order:
1. The Court DENIES defendant’s request with regards to MERCK005251-5252.
Defendant must reproduce MERCK005251-5252 without redactions and with
new bates numbers. Defendant is free to designate the confidentiality of the at-
issue documents as it sees fit and in accordance with the operative Protective
Order.
Case 3:24-cv-01770-W-KSC Document 66 Filed 11/24/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
9 of 10

10
3:24-cv-01770-W-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. The Court GRANTS defendant’s request with regards to MERCK005370-5371.
Defendant 	does 	not 	need 	to 	reproduce 	MERCK005370-5371 	because 	its
redactions are valid.
3. Defendant’s request with regards to MERCK005368 is moot because it was
already produced without redactions. Defendant does not need to reproduce
MERCK005368.
Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. No. 42] is therefore resolved
in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: November 24, 2025
Case 3:24-cv-01770-W-KSC Document 66 Filed 11/24/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
10 of 10