Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02110/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02110-3/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 As currently drafted, the order does not provide for disclosure to outside counsel or even

the court.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ON COMMAND VIDEO 

CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff,

v.

DIGITAL INFINITY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-2110 JW (PVT)

ORDER RE PARTIES’ PROPOSED

FORM OF PROTECTIVE ORDER 

On November 7, 2006, the parties filed a [Proposed] Stipulated Protective Order. Having

reviewed the form of protective order submitted by the parties, the court finds it appropriate to issue

this interim order. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than January 5, 2006, the parties shall file a revised

form of protective order that makes the following changes:

1. Describes the information that may be designated as “Confidential -- Attorneys Eyes

Only” as “extremely sensitive Confidential information whose disclosure to another

party or nonparty would create a substantial risk of serious injury that could not be

avoided by less restrictive means”; 

2. Identifies all categories of people to whom “Confidential -- Attorneys Eyes Only”

may be disclosed;1

3. Revises paragraph 9 to require written agreement of the designating party or order of

the court before a party discloses information it believes has become public

knowledge;

Case 5:06-cv-02110-JW Document 58 Filed 12/15/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 As currently drafted, the order only requires compliance with Local Rule 79-5 for

documents containing information designated confidential by another party.

3 Blanket protective orders are intended to facilitate application of the protections afforded

under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c), which does not address the standards applicable to

inadvertent production of privileged or work product information. Any inadvertent production of

privileged or work product information will be handled in accordance with the standards developed by

the courts for those situations. See, e.g., Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Garvey, 109 F.R.D. 323, 331-32

(N.D.Cal. 1985).

4 The parties may use written agreements to resolve any disputes that arise under the

protective order, but modification of the terms of the order itself may only be made by means of a court

order or stipulated court order.

ORDER, page 2

4. Revises paragraph 10 to require that any party who wishes to file a document

containing information designated “Confidential” or “Confidential -- Attorneys Eyes

Only” must submit the document to the court along with a request to seal pursuant to

Civil Local Rule 79-5;2

5. Omits paragraph 12;3

6. Omits paragraph 14, or revises it to require written agreement of the designating party

or order of the court before a party discloses information it believes is or has become

public knowledge; and 

7. Revises paragraph 20 to require further order of the court for any requested

modification of the terms of the protective order.4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pending entry of the final form of protective order, the

provisions of the parties’ proposed form of protective order, as modified herein, shall govern the

handling of confidential information exchanged or disclosed during discovery in this case.

Dated: 12/15/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-02110-JW Document 58 Filed 12/15/06 Page 2 of 2