Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02118/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02118-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

1

 Although he did not file an opposition, Miller filed a belated declaration regarding designation of confidential

materials. Doc. #453. Attached to his declaration are over 100 pages (some duplicates and triplicates) signed by various

individuals in relation to confidentiality agreements. The agreements, however, limit the individuals' use of BCC data and

do not limit BCC in any way. Accordingly, the confidentiality agreements do not meet Miller's burden of showing that

his documents are entitled to confidential treatment and any log he submits cannot rely on said agreements.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RALPH MILLER,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES, et

al,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 02-2118 MJJ (MEJ)

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S

RENEWED MOTION TO RELEASE

PLAINTIFF'S DOCUMENTS FROM

CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT

DESIGNATION

Before the Court is defendant International Business Machines' ("IBM") Renewed Motion to

Release All of Plaintiff Miller's Documents from Confidential Treatment Designation. Doc. #471. 

Although Miller filed no opposition to IBM's motion, the Court cannot take the serious nature of

IBM's request as lightly as Miller.1

 Accordingly, by May 11, 2006, Miller shall either:

1) de-designate all documents he produced as confidential; or

2) submit all documents designated as confidential for in camera review. If the documents

were not properly identified in production (i.e., Bates stamped), Miller shall identify each

document by Bates number and ensure that the documents are submitted in the order in

which they are marked, with each page attached (i.e., stapled or clipped) in an appropriate

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 509 Filed 05/04/06 Page 1 of 2
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

manner. Further, Miller shall provide a log and, for each document, state the reason for its

confidential designation. Miller shall not make general statements about categories of

documents; rather, he shall state the reason for each individual Bates-numbered document. 

For any document Miller fails to properly identify by Bates number, or for which he fails to

properly attach pages, or for which he fails to state a reason for its confidential designation,

said document shall be deemed de-designated. In preparing his log, Miller should note the

Court's statement in footnote 1 regarding confidentiality agreements that control individuals

receiving BCC's data but do not limit BCC.

If Miller submits the documents for in camera review, he shall serve IBM with a copy of his

log by May 11, 2006. IBM may file a response to Miller's log by May 18, 2006. Miller shall not

file any reply. If Miller fails to submit the documents as specified above by May 11, they shall be

deemed de-designated. Upon in camera review of the documents, the Court shall issue an order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2006 MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 509 Filed 05/04/06 Page 2 of 2