Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01937/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01937-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

2 The deposition excerpt attached to the Gonzalez Declaration (Docket No. 303) was

required to be treated as “Confidential” because 30 days had not yet elapsed since the deposition. See

Protective Order, ¶ 3(b).

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RICHARD LYTEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

JANET SIMPSON, 

Defendant.

___________________________________

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-1937 JF (PVT)

ORDER RE BOTH PARTIES’

VIOLATION OF PROTECTIVE

ORDER

It has come to the court’s attention that both Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Lytel’s (“Lytel”)

and Defendant/Counter-Claimant Simpson (“Simpson”) have at least once disclosed in the public

record information designatied “Confidential” in violation of the Stipulated Protective Order as

Modified by the Court (“Protective Order”) on file herein at Docket No. 167.1 Lytel’s counsel

improperly disclosed Confidential information in connection with Lytel’s motion for order requiring

Simpson to submit to a mental examination.2 Simpson’s counsel improperly disclosed Confidential

information in connection with Simpson’s motion to remove the confidentiality designation of

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 333 Filed 07/21/06 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

3 While Simpson’s counsel did not quote verbatim from the Document RL 1413, he did

disclose in his brief some of the substance of that document.

4 Although Judge Fogel previously granted a request to file the FAC under seal, and the

previously filed electronic copy was removed from the docket, yesterday Simpson again electronically

filed her FAC in the public record.

ORDER, page 2

Document RL 1413,3 and by twice now filing in the public record Simpson’s First Amended

Counterclaim which actually quotes verbatim from that document.4 Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all attorneys of record for each party shall personally read

the Protective Order. Counsel are cautioned that any further violations of this court’s Protective

Order may well result in contempt sanctions. If there is any uncertainty regarding whether a specific

disclosure is allowed under the Protective Order, the party wishing to make the disclose should either

obtain written consent to the disclosure from the designating party or, if the designating party does

not consent, seek court guidance. Any request for such court guidance shall comply with the

procedure set forth in Civil Local Rule 7-11.

Dated: 7/21/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 333 Filed 07/21/06 Page 2 of 2