Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-06727/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-06727-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AFSHIN TIRAIE,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAVILAN JOINT COMMUNITY 

COLLEGE DISTRICT,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-06727-SVK 

ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’

PROTECTIVE ORDER DISPUTE

Re: Dkt. No. 42

In connection with the Court’s June 13, 2019 order granting Plaintiff’s Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 56(d) request for additional discovery to oppose Defendant’s summary judgment 

motion, the Court ordered Defendant to prepare a protective order for Plaintiff’s approval based 

upon the District’s model. ECF 39 at 1–2. The Parties now dispute a proposed addition to the 

model protective order made by Defendant. ECF 42. 

As an initial matter, Plaintiff failed to appear for a telephonic discovery hearing set for 

June 26, 2019. ECF 45. After contacting Plaintiff, the Court attempted to schedule another 

telephonic hearing, but Plaintiff was “unavailable.” The Court notes that Plaintiff initiated this 

case and, not withstanding his pro se status, has an obligation to appear at Court-set hearings. In 

the interest of insuring that the Parties have sufficient time to meet the deadlines set forth in 

ECF 41, the Court addresses this matter without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-

1(b). 

Defendant proposes one addition to the District’s model protective order’s definition of 

confidential information: “It includes. but is not limited, to personnel information relating to nonparties.” ECF 42 at 6. While this clarification is perhaps superfluous, it is reasonable in light of

Defendant’s anticipated production of confidential personnel information in response to Plaintiff’s 

Case 5:18-cv-06727-SVK Document 46 Filed 06/27/19 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

discovery requests. This added language has absolutely no negative impact on Plaintiff’s access to 

documents produced by Defendant or the use of those documents in this litigation. It only serves 

to ensure Plaintiff’s understanding that confidential information related to non-parties is subject to 

the protections set forth in the protective order and may only be disclosed to certain individuals 

and for certain purposes. For example, section 12.3 governs the filing of information designated 

confidential, and section 7.2 lists the individuals to whom a party may disclose confidential 

information. 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Defendant may include the proposed language in 

the Parties’ protective order. The Court FURTHER ORDERS that Plaintiff shall sign and return

the protective order immediately upon receipt from Defendant, and Defendant shall file it for the 

Court’s final approval. Plaintiff’s prompt attention to this matter is necessary to his case moving 

forward in a timely and efficient manner. Plaintiff’s failure to execute the protective order will 

allow Defendant to suspend its document production, will delay Plaintiff’s receipt of documents 

and will reduce the time for depositions. The current schedule for summary judgment briefing, 

already extended once, will not be extended further due to unreasonable delays by either Party. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2019

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-06727-SVK Document 46 Filed 06/27/19 Page 2 of 2