Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02280/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02280-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

*E-FILED 8/2/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RICHARD L. CARRIZOSA, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

PAUL R. STASSINOS, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 05-2280 RMW (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Before the court is defendants’ application requesting that the Court enter a general

protective order in this action. By order dated July 20 2006, the Court construed defendant’s

application as including a motion to shorten time under Local Rule 6-3, and the Court solicited

opposition on the merits from plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have now filed opposition, and the Court finds

the matter suitable for disposition without further briefing or oral argument.

Defendants’ request that a protective order be entered in the form submitted with their

motion is granted. The Court will execute and file the protective order separately. The general

policy concerns raised by plaintiffs regarding “blanket” protective orders are legitimate; however

Local Civil Rule 79-5 has been promulgated for the very purpose of addressing those concerns. 

Additionally, counsel have the obligation to exercise care and restraint in designating materials

under the protective order. While the Court expresses no opinion as to whether past practices in the

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 105 Filed 08/02/06 Page 1 of 4
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

related case were appropriate, all counsel are cautioned against designating materials as confidential

or highly confidential under the protective order unless such protection is clearly warranted.

Plaintiffs’ proposal that the designating party carry the burden of filing a motion in the event

of a dispute regarding a designation is rejected as not in the interests of judicial efficiency. It is a

requirement of this Court, however, that under any general protective order the burden of

establishing that materials warrant protection remains with the designating party. Thus, a party

challenging a designation need only file a simple motion identifying the materials at issue, and it

then becomes the designating party’s task to justify the designation.

Plaintiffs’ proposal regarding how designated materials are filed with the Court is based on

an apparent misunderstanding of the provisions of Rule 79-5, as that rule accomplishes the same

end. Under Rule 79-5, where a party wishes to file a document that another party has designated as

confidential under a general protective order, the party must submit the document with an

administrative motion to have it sealed, but it is the designating party’s burden “to file with the

Court and serve a declaration establishing that the designated information is sealable, and [to] lodge

and serve a narrowly tailored proposed sealing order, or [to] withdraw the designation of

confidentiality.” Rule 79-5 (d). If the designating party does not file such a declaration within 5

days “the document or proposed filing will be made part of the public record.” Id.

Plaintiffs’ objection to a provision for “attorney eyes only” designations is based on their

contention that nothing in this case will merit such a designation and on their allegation that the

designation has been abused in the related case. The Court prefers that two levels of protection be

available in general protective orders, but again cautions the parties to exercise careful judgment in

making any designations.

Finally, the Court declines plaintiffs’ request that the order not preclude them from

disclosing designated information to other potential private litigants or to law enforcement personnel

absent 

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 105 Filed 08/02/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

subpoena and notice to the designating parties. Plaintiffs’ proposal would unduly undermine the

protection the order is intended to provide.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 105 Filed 08/02/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Paul Arons lopa@rockisland.com

O. Randolph Bragg rand@horwitzlaw.com, shannon@horwitzlaw.com

June D. Coleman jcoleman@mpbf.com, mellis@mpbf.com; fwilson@mpbf.com;

npruitt@mpbf.com

Mark Ewell Ellis mellis@mpbf.com, lmiller@mpbf.com; npruitt@mpbf.com

Candace M. Pagliero cpagliero@paglierolaw.com

James Raymond Pagliero jpagliero@paglierolaw.com

Frederick William Schwinn cand_cmecf@sjconsumerlaw.com,

fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com; fschwinn@gmail.com

Thomas Mark Smith msmith@clifford-brownlaw.com, bpowers@clifford-brownlaw.com

Ronald Wilcox ronaldwilcox@post.harvard.edu

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 8/2/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 105 Filed 08/02/06 Page 4 of 4