Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01428/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01428-18/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT )

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

ERIKA MORALES and ANONYMOUS )

PLAINTIFF’S ONE THROUGH EIGHT )

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors )

v. )

)

)

ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, )

et al. )

)

Defendants. )

 )

Case No. 1:07-cv-01428 LJO JLT

ORDER THAT THE PROTECTIVE ORDER

ISSUED JANUARY 14, 2009 WILL APPLY

IN FULL FORCE TO DOCUMENTS TO BE

PRODUCED ACCORDING TO THE

COURT’S FEBRUARY 5, 2010 ORDER (DOC

157)

On February 5, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff, EEOC’s motion to

compel defendant ABM Janitorial Services Northern California to produce certain documents. (Doc.

157) In that order, the Court instructed that personal identifiers contained on the documents as to certain

people would be redacted. The Court ordered also that the parties provide the Court a stipulated

protective order “to ensure that any other personal information, not discussed here, is maintained

confidential.” (Emphasis added.)

ABMNC proposed that the stipulated protective order issued by the Court on January 14, 2009

Case 1:07-cv-01428-LJO-JLT Document 175 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 4
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

should apply to the current document production. (Doc. 76) The EEOC objects. (Doc 171, Ex A) The

EEOC has provided its own proposed protective order that differs in many respects from the protective

order issued by the Court on January 14, 2009. (Doc. 174) The Court agrees with ABMNC that the

January 14, 2009 protective order should apply in full force to the current production and notes that, by

the express language of the stipulated joint protective order, the parties intended that it would apply to

all information obtained in the course of the litigation. (Doc. 76)

The January 14, 2009 Stipulated Protective Order

On January 13, 2009, the parties jointly filed a stipulated protective order. (Doc 75.) On January

14, 2009, Magistrate Judge Goldner signed and issued the protective order. (Doc. 76) Notably, the

stipulated protective order reads, 

Documents and information subject to discovery in this action reflect, or may reflect,

confidential corporate information of Defendants ABM INDUSTRIES, INC. and ABM

JANITORIAL SERVICES, INC.; ABM JANITORIAL NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

(“Defendants”) and/or confidential infromation regarding the employees and/or former

employees of Defendants. The following Stipulation and Protective Order shall

govern the production, disclosure, and use of such confidential information in this

action.

(Emphasis added.) The stipulated protective order defines “confidential information” as,

any type or classification of information, whether originals, copies or in redacted form,

that would reveal the following information:

(a) Addresses, phone numbers, and other contact information of Defendants’

current or former employees.

(b) Documents pertaining to complaints of sexual assault and/or sexual

harassment allegedly occurring in Defendant’s [sic] workplace.

The stipulated protective order provides, that it, 

shall control the pretrial production, disclosure, and use of confidential information

revealed by or to the stipulating parties or any of them, through deposition, through

interrogatory responses, through production of documents, though other discovery, or

through information means . . .

(Emphasis added.)

Inexplicably, the EEOC contends that the information in the documents that ABMNC will

produce according to the Court’s February 5, 2010 order, should not be covered by this preexisting

protective order. In particular, the EEOC takes the position that the only information on the documents

Case 1:07-cv-01428-LJO-JLT Document 175 Filed 02/18/10 Page 2 of 4
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

Likewise it appears that the EEOC seems to take the position that “personal information” includes addresses but, 1

apparently, does not include the salacious details regarding the nature and extent of sexual assaults and sexual harassment

upon which the complaints are based. Clearly not.

3

to be produced that she be kept confidential is,

(a) The addresses, phone numbers, and other contact information of the complainants

and alleged harassers named on documents produced by Defendant ABM Janitorial

Services Northern California pursuant to this Court's 2/5/10 Order granting in part and

denying in part EEOC's Motion to Compel Def. ABM Janitorial Services Northern

California to Respond and Produce Responsive Documents ("2/5/10 Order" (Docket #

157)). 

The Court is most perplexed by the EEOC’s suggested language that,

The terms "complainants" and "alleged harassers" do not include the complainants and

harassers who have already been identified by any party in this litigation.

It appears that the EEOC is suggesting that all names of claimants already identified to the defendants

should no longer be kept confidential, despite its efforts and that of counsel for the intervenors to keep

their identities secret. The Court finds no basis to now subject these people to public scrutiny. 1

The Court can only conclude that the EEOC fails to apprehend the meaning of the Court’s order

issued on February 5, 2010, given that it persists in the belief that the protective order at issue should

address only some of the personal identifiers that the Court ordered redacted. However, the redaction

will already preserve the confidentiality of this information. The Court’s order required a joint stipulated

protective order that would preserve the confidentiality of “any other personal information, not

discussed here” to those outside of the current litigation. (Emphasis added.) Moreover, the January 14,

2009 protective order, through the requirement that “complaints of sexual assault and/or sexual

harassment allegedly occurring in Defendant’s [sic] workplace,” also maintains that confidentiality of

claimants and alleged harassers that have already been identified in the litigation.

For these reasons, the Court finds that along with the redaction, the stipulated protective order

issued on January 14, 2009, adequately protects the confidential, personal information contained in the

documents that ABMNC was ordered to produce in the February 5, 2010 order.

///

Case 1:07-cv-01428-LJO-JLT Document 175 Filed 02/18/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court orders: 

1. That the parties are relieved of the requirement that they submit an additional joint

stipulated protective order specific to the February 5, 2010 order related the EEOC’s

motion for production of documents;

2. That the January 14, 2009 stipulated protective order will apply in full force to the

documents to be produced by ABMNC according to the Court’s order dated February 5,

2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-01428-LJO-JLT Document 175 Filed 02/18/10 Page 4 of 4