Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-05404/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-05404-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:2 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

ZACK WARD AND THOMAS BUCHAR, on 

behalf of themselves and all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

APPLE, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 12-cv-5404 YGR

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 55

The parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. No. 55) is hereby DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. The parties’ proposed order does not conform to this District’s Model Protective 

Order or to the undersigned’s discovery procedures. The parties may file an amended motion for 

entry of the stipulated protective order. The District's Model Protective Order1and the 

undersigned’s discovery procedures2are available for review online. 

Further, the parties are directed to include the below language at Paragraph 6.3 on Judicial 

Intervention in order to conform to the undersigned’s discovery procedures:

6.3 Judicial Intervention. If the Parties cannot resolve a challenge without court 

intervention, the parties shall follow the Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases regarding Discovery 

and Discovery Motions. The parties may file a joint letter brief regarding retaining confidentiality 

 

1

See United States District Court, Northern District of California, “Stipulated Protective Orders,”

http://cand.uscourts.gov/stipprotectorder.

2

See United States District Court, Northern District of California, Standing Orders of Judge 

Gonzalez Rogers, http://cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders

Case 4:12-cv-05404-YGR Document 56 Filed 09/15/15 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

within 21 days of the initial notice of challenge or within 14 days of the parties agreeing that the 

meet and confer process will not resolve their dispute, whichever is earlier. Failure by a 

Designating Party to file such discovery dispute letter within the applicable 21 or 14 day period (set 

forth above) with the Court shall automatically waive the confidentiality designation for each 

challenged designation. If, after submitting a joint letter brief, the Court allows that a motion may 

be filed, any such motion must be accompanied by a competent declaration affirming that the 

movant has complied with the meet and confer requirements imposed in the preceding paragraph. 

The Court, in its discretion, may elect to transfer the discovery matter to a Magistrate Judge.

In addition, the parties may file a joint letter brief regarding a challenge to a confidentiality 

designation at any time if there is good cause for doing so, including a challenge to the designation 

of a deposition transcript or any portions thereof. If, after submitting a joint letter brief, the Court 

allows that a motion may be filed, any motion brought pursuant to this provision must be 

accompanied by a competent declaration affirming that the movant has complied with the meet and 

confer requirements imposed by the preceding paragraph. The Court, in its discretion, may elect to 

refer the discovery matter to a Magistrate Judge.

The burden of persuasion in any such challenge proceeding shall be on the Designating 

Party. Frivolous challenges, and those made for an improper purpose (e.g., to harass or impose 

unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) may expose the Challenging Party to sanctions. 

Unless the Designating Party has waived the confidentiality designation by failing to file a letter 

brief to retain confidentiality as described above, all parties shall continue to afford the material in 

question the level of protection to which it is entitled under the Producing Party’s designation until 

the court rules on the challenge.

This Order terminates Docket No. 55.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: September 15, 2015 _______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:12-cv-05404-YGR Document 56 Filed 09/15/15 Page 2 of 2