Tyler Swain v. American Honda Motor Co.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon memorializes the parameters of a previously entered protective order in Tyler Swain’s automobile-warranty litigation against American Honda Motor Co. The order restricts direct contact with represented parties, harassing or intimidating social-media activity, publication of individual employees’ names or images, and recording or reposting recordings of employees without consent. It also addresses the duty to confer before filing motions and permits nonparty Lithia Motors to renew its request for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Holdings

1. The protective order does not prohibit Swain from stating the names of individual dealerships in social-media posts, but it prohibits direct communication with represented parties, including through hashtags or links, posts intended to harass or intimidate opposing parties or counsel, recording or posting recordings of Honda or dealership employees without express permission, and publishing the names or photographs of individual Honda or represented dealership employees.
2. Before bringing a motion or asking the court to intervene in an alleged protective-order dispute, the parties must make a good-faith effort to confer; concerning social-media posts, the complaining party should first confer with Swain and provide an opportunity to cure before seeking court intervention.
3. The court possesses inherent authority to control its docket and may sanction extrajudicial communications intended to harass or intimidate opposing parties, counsel, or the court; failure to follow court rules may result in sanctions, including dismissal.
4. Lithia may file a renewed motion for attorneys' fees and costs, and the court will consider that motion after filing; the order does not itself award fees or costs.

Questions Presented

1. What conduct is prohibited by the existing protective order, including whether Swain may identify dealerships in social-media posts, directly communicate with represented parties through hashtags or links, publish employee names or photographs, or repost recordings of employees.
2. Whether parties must confer in good faith before seeking court intervention concerning alleged protective-order violations or other motions.
3. Whether nonparty Lithia Motors may renew its request for attorneys' fees and costs based on allegedly burdensome discovery and protective-order violations.

Disposition

other