Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03988/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03988-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SAFRONIA DODD-OWENS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

KYPHON, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C06-03988 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

[Re: Docket No. 87]

On September 14, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion for protective order. Although the title

of the filed document indicates that it is a “[Proposed] Stipulated Protective Order,” plaintiffs

note that the document was actually being submitted only “on their own behalf because

Defendant has not responded to Plaintiffs’ proposed changes.” (See Mot. at 1, n.1). Plaintiffs

do not say precisely what provisions are disputed. Nor do they explain why the court should

adopt their proposed form of order. Moreover, there is no indication that the parties have

engaged in good faith meet-and-confer negotiations to resolve the disputed issues (whatever

those might be). Indeed, plaintiff’s motion indicates that the parties’ meet-and-confer efforts

are not yet complete. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s motion for protective order is denied without

prejudice. The parties are directed to meet-and-confer in good faith to resolve any disputes

before seeking judicial intervention. If they are still unable to resolve those disagreements, any

*E-FILED: 9.28.2007*

Case 5:06-cv-03988-JF Document 90 Filed 09/28/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

party may seek relief from the court by filing an appropriately noticed motion in accordance

with the court’s Civil Local Rules.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

September 28, 2007

Case 5:06-cv-03988-JF Document 90 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

5:06-cv-3988 Notice electronically mailed to: 

Harold R. Jones hrj@severson.com, ano@severson.com 

Thomas Marc Litton tmlitton@compuserve.com 

Emily L. Maxwell , Esq emaxwell@graycary.com 

Rhonda Louise Nelson rln@severson.com, vja@severson.com 

Carter Winford Ott carter.ott@dlapiper.com, joanne.leon@dlapiper.com 

Stefanie F Roemer sroemer@nydclaw.com, fgilbert@nydclaw.com 

Luanne R. Sacks luanne.sacks@dlapiper.com, kathleen.fischer@dlapiper.com 

David W. Sanford dsanford@nydclaw.com, csetubal@nydclaw.com, fgilbert@nydclaw.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have

not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:06-cv-03988-JF Document 90 Filed 09/28/07 Page 3 of 3