Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07547/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07547-1/pdf.json

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

---

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 

1 

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Re: Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) Case No. 5:19-cv-07547-SVK 

Richard A. Hoyer (State Bar No. 151931)

rhoyer@hoyerlaw.com

Ryan L. Hicks (State Bar No. 260284) 

rhicks@hoyerlaw.com

Nicole B. Gage (State Bar No. 318005) 

ngage@hoyerlaw.com

HOYER & HICKS 

4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 766-3539 

Facsimile: (415) 276-1738 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

TRACY HANKINS 

Mark S. Askanas (State Bar No. 122745) 

Dylan B. Carp (State Bar No. 196846) 

Amy P. Frenzen (State Bar No. 245368) 

JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 

50 California Street, 9th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111-4615 

Telephone: (415) 394-9400 

Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 

E-mail: Mark.Askanas@jacksonlewis.com

E-mail: Dylan.Carp@jacksonlewis.com

E-mail: Amy.Frenzen@jacksonlewis.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

CALIX, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN JOSE DIVISION 

TRACY HANKINS,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CALIX INC. and DOES 1-25, 

Defendants, 

Case No. 5:19-cv-07547-SVK

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE: FEDERAL RULE OF 

EVIDENCE 502(d) 

Complaint Filed: 11/15/2019 

Trial Date: 5/3/2021 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 5:19-cv-07547-SVK Document 24 Filed 03/09/20 Page 1 of 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 

2 

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Re: Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) Case No. 5:19-cv-07547-SVK 

Plaintiff Tracy Hankins (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Calix, Inc. (“Defendant”), by and 

through their respective counsel of record, stipulate as follows in order to facilitate the exchange 

of information and documents, which may be subject to confidentiality limitations on disclosure 

due to federal laws, state laws, and privacy rights, as follows: 

1. The production of privileged or work-product protected documents, electronically

stored information (“ESI”) or information, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not a waiver of the 

privilege or protection from discovery in this case or in any other federal or state proceeding. This 

Order shall be interpreted to provide the maximum protection allowed by California law and 

federal law, including Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d). 

2. Nothing contained herein is intended to or shall serve to limit a party’s right to

conduct a review of documents, ESI or information (including metadata) for relevance, 

responsiveness and/or segregation of privileged and/or protected information before production. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD. 

DATED: March 4, 2020 _____________________________________ 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Tracy Hankins 

DATED: March 6, 2020 _____________________________________ 

Attorneys for Defendant Calix, Inc. 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the Stipulated 502(d) Protective Order is hereby approved 

and adopted. IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 9, 2020 _________________________________________

United States Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen 

4833-4269-0230, v. 1

/s/ Amy P. Frenzen

Case 5:19-cv-07547-SVK Document 24 Filed 03/09/20 Page 2 of 2