Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02301/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02301-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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

 Defendant’s motion for a protective order is Docket No. 31 in 07-2301, and plaintiffs’

opposition to that motion is Docket No. 35 in 07-3600 SI. If documents are relevant to both cases, the

parties are directed to file the documents in both cases. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLIE EAP,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-2301 SI

Related Case: C 07-3600 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

The parties have submitted a discovery dispute to the Court for resolution.1 Plaintiffs Eap and

Wyckoff seek defendant Daniel Sperl’s medical and employment records for the two year period

preceding the accident, while defendant Sperl seeks a protective order limiting those documents to those

drafted/originating within six months prior to the accident, and covering relevant subject matter as

determined by Sperl’s counsel. Plaintiffs assert that a protective order is unnecessary because they have

agreed to execute a confidentiality agreement limiting disclosure of the documents to plaintiffs’ counsel

and retained experts.

The Court agrees with plaintiffs that Sperl’s employment and medical records are relevant to

whether Sperl was acting in the course of his employment at the time of the accident, whether the United

States of America negligently supervised Sperl, and whether the accident was as a result of any of

Sperl’s medical conditions and/or medications. The Court finds that the two year time period sought

by plaintiffs is reasonable, and that a confidentiality agreement will sufficiently protect Sperl’s privacy.

Case 3:07-cv-02301-SI Document 36 Filed 03/26/08 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

Furthermore, in the event any party wishes to file Sperl’s employment or medical records with the Court

in connection with a future motion, they shall file those records under seal. Accordingly, the Court

DENIES defendant’s motion for a protective order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02301-SI Document 36 Filed 03/26/08 Page 2 of 2