Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04803/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04803-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

*E-Filed 5/9/05*

AND ADDENDUM TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 5:04-cv-04803-JF Document 14 Filed 05/09/05 Page 1 of 14
Case 5:04-cv-04803-JF Document 14 Filed 05/09/05 Page 2 of 14
Case 5:04-cv-04803-JF Document 14 Filed 05/09/05 Page 3 of 14
See Desig. of Docs in Add. to P.O.

Case 5:04-cv-04803-JF Document 14 Filed 05/09/05 Page 4 of 14
Case 5:04-cv-04803-JF Document 14 Filed 05/09/05 Page 5 of 14
Case 5:04-cv-04803-JF Document 14 Filed 05/09/05 Page 6 of 14
Case 5:04-cv-04803-JF Document 14 Filed 05/09/05 Page 7 of 14
Case 5:04-cv-04803-JF Document 14 Filed 05/09/05 Page 8 of 14
Case 5:04-cv-04803-JF Document 14 Filed 05/09/05 Page 9 of 14
See App. to File Docs Under Seal in Add. to P.O.

Case 5:04-cv-04803-JF Document 14 Filed 05/09/05 Page 10 of 14
5/9/05 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd

---------

Case 5:04-cv-04803-JF Document 14 Filed 05/09/05 Page 11 of 14
Case 5:04-cv-04803-JF Document 14 Filed 05/09/05 Page 12 of 14
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

ADDENDUM TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

Bradford Technologies, Inc. v. A La Mode, Inc.,

Case No. C04-04803 JF (HRL)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

DESIGNATION OF DOCUMENTS

Before designating any specific information “Confidential” or "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes

Only" the designating party’s counsel shall make a good faith determination that the information warrants

protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Counsel are cautioned the over-designation of documents may result in sanctions. The filing of

documents designated “Confidential” or "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" puts an additional

burden on the Court. Often the party filing the document is not the designating party. In that situation, the

party does not have the option to unilaterally de-designate the documents before submitting them to the

Court, and has no choice but to request they be filed under seal. Over-designating documents can thus

result in unnecessary work for the Court in sorting the documents that deserve sealing from those that do

not, as well as additional work for the parties who must then re-file public versions of the non-confidential

documents. The best way to avoid this result is for counsel to use best efforts to make appropriate

designations at the outset, and to promptly de-designate a document when it comes to counsel’s attention

that the document is over-designated.

APPLICATION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

Any party wishing to file under seal any document(s) designated “Confidential” or "Highly

Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" shall submit the document(s) along with an Application for Sealing

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5. The document(s) shall be submitted in an appropriate envelope

conforming to the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5(b) or (c), labeled in accordance with Civ. L. R. 3-

4(a), and prominently displaying the notation "DOCUMENT SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL."

NO LATER THAN FIVE (5) COURT DAYS AFTER ANY APPLICATION FOR SEALING IS

FILED, the party that has designated or claims as “Confidential” or "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes

Only" the information for which sealing is requested shall serve and file declaration(s) from competent

witnesses setting forth specific facts demonstrating that sealing is warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule

Case 5:04-cv-04803-JF Document 14 Filed 05/09/05 Page 13 of 14
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

26(c). The parties are cautioned that “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or

articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. International Ins. Co.,

966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121

(3rd Cir.1986)). Further, the factual showing must address separately each portion of the materials that the

party contends warrants protection. See Civil Local Rule 79-5 and commentary thereto.

Case 5:04-cv-04803-JF Document 14 Filed 05/09/05 Page 14 of 14