Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03526/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03526-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETROLEUM SALES, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

VALERO REFINING COMPANY -

CALIFORNIA, et al.

Defendant(s). /

No. C 05-3526 SBA (MEJ)

ORDER RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER

AND PENDING DISCOVERY

DISPUTES

The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint discovery dispute letters, filed April 27, 2006. 

Docs. #36-39. The first issue the Court shall address is defendants' request for a protective order. 

Defendants argue that a protective order is necessary in this action because certain documents

contain confidentiality provisions, as well as confidential information concerning its strategies and

business decisions. Defendants seek entry of a protective order virtually identical to the protective

order in another pending case brought by PSI in Superior Court (Ishaq Trading Corp., et al. v.

Valero Refining Company - California, San Francisco Superior Court, No. CGC-04-428755).

In response, PSI argues that defendants have not shown that the documents are confidential,

nor that their disclosure would cause cognizable harm. PSI further argues that it should not be

bound by terms of a protective order entered in another action because it did not stipulate to the

terms of that order. Moreover, PSI opposes the form of the protective order because it would

preclude its counsel from disclosing certain documents or information to its president and owner.

Upon review of the parties' arguments, the Court finds a protective order appropriate in this

Case 4:05-cv-03526-SBA Document 40 Filed 05/03/06 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

case. Accordingly, within one week from the date of this Order, the parties shall e-file a stipulated

protective order that includes the "attorneys eyes only" provision. The parties shall include the

requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5 in their proposed protective order. The Court also recognizes

PSI's counsel's desire to consult with PSI's president and owner and, although the protective order

need not include a provision allowing the owner access to the documents, PSI shall be permitted to

seek access for certain documents after production. Thus, after production under the protective

order, if PSI's counsel deems it necessary to consult with the owner regarding any confidential

documents, the parties shall meet and confer to determine whether they can reach an agreement on

this issue. If not, the parties shall file a joint letter addressing the specific documents for which PSI

would like to obtain access for its owner. 

Within 30 days of the Court's entry of the protective order, the parties shall serve their

responses. If either party requires more time to complete production and the opposing party is

unwilling to stipulate to allow more time, the parties shall file a joint letter. As to the remaining

disputes, the Court finds it premature to address them as many disputes can be resolved after entry

of a protective order. Accordingly, if any disputes remain after production under the protective

order, the parties shall bring those disputes to the Court's attention at that time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2006 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03526-SBA Document 40 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 2