Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02833/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02833-24/pdf.json

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

---

ORDER(No. 10-cv-02833-LB)

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 

San Francisco Division 

BRENDA HILL, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, 

INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 10-cv-02833-LB 

ORDER 

Re: ECF No. 255 

The next issue is Mr. Friedman’s request for a protective order so that he may share protected 

information with consultants or witnesses. (See Motion, ECF No. 255.1

) Kaiser opposes the 

proposed order as insufficiently tethered to an identified need. (Opposition, ECF No. 258.) 

The main issues are entitlement to fees (through fee agreements or otherwise) and the 

reasonableness of fees and rates, all illuminated through declarations and exhibits. (See, e.g., 

Order, ECF No. 236 at 20; Order, ECF No. 249 at 2.) It might be that Mr. Friedman needs to share 

confidential information in aid of his motion or perhaps more so with his reply. 

The court attaches its standing order, which describes its procedures for resolving discovery 

disputes. The court is confident that on their own, the parties can devise a protective order (or use 

 

1

 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page 

numbers at the tops of the documents. 

Case 3:10-cv-02833-LB Document 262 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 2
ORDER(No. 10-cv-02833-LB) 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 

the court’s model protective order at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/model-protective-orders) to 

fashion appropriate safeguards to address Kaiser’s concern about disclosure to lawyers or others 

adverse to it in litigation. Mr. Friedman will need to identify what he wants to disclose, and it 

seems likely that he needs to identify who he wants to disclose it to given the issues that Kaiser 

identifies. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 29, 2016 ______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:10-cv-02833-LB Document 262 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 2