Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06903/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06903-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN L. HILL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 

)

GORDON R. ENGLAND, Secretary of )

the Navy, )

)

Defendant. )

 )

 

Case No. 1: 03-cv-6903 REC TAG

(Consolidated with 1:04-cv-5598 REC TAG)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

OF DOCUMENTS (Doc. 52)

Summary of the Pleadings

 This litigation involves two employment discrimination cases in which Bryan

L. Hill (“Plaintiff”) is appearing pro se. The cases are: Bryan L. Hill v. England, 1:03-cv-6903

REC TAG; and Bryan L. Hill v. England, 1:04-cv-5598 REC TAG. The two cases have been

related, and Defendant filed a motion to consolidate the cases. The motion to consolidate the cases

was granted. Bryan L. Hill v. England, 1:03-cv-6903 REC TAG is now consolidated with Bryan L.

Hill v. England, 1:04-cv-5598 REC TAG, for all purposes as one action, and Bryan L. Hill v.

England, 1:03-cv-6903 REC TAG, is the lead case number.

Factual Background

Plaintiff was employed as a civilian with the Navy from October 1970 to March 2003, when

he was terminated. At the time of his termination, Plaintiff was the Operations Manager within the

Information Technology Information Management Department at China Lake facility of the Naval

Case 1:03-cv-06903-LJO -TAG Document 59 Filed 12/14/05 Page 1 of 11
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

Air Warfare Center Weapons Division of the U.S. Navy. As a result of his termination, Plaintiff

alleges claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 633a. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges: (a) he

had a disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act, namely, anxiety and depression created

by having to work for certain supervisors, was denied a requested accommodation for it, and was

subjected to a hostile work environment; (b) he was retaliated against by being ostracized and

exposed to a hostile work environment; (c) he was retaliated against on the basis of

disability/perceived disability and age; and (d) he was denied benefits based upon age discrimination.

Analysis & Discussion

A. Discovery Overview

The purpose of discovery is to make trial “less a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair

contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest extent possible,” United States v.

Procter & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 78 S. Ct 983, 987 (1958), and to narrow and clarify the issues in

dispute, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501, 67 S. Ct. 385, 388 (1947).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) establishes the scope of discovery and states in pertinent part:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to

the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature,

custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and

the identify and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. 

For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject

matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if

the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

“The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be

allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.” Oakes v.

Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998); Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna Casualty

& Surety Co., 135 F.R.D. 101, 104 (D.N.J. 1990).

///

Case 1:03-cv-06903-LJO -TAG Document 59 Filed 12/14/05 Page 2 of 11
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

B. Request for Production of Documents Standards

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) requires a written response to a request for production to “state, with

respect to each item or category, that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested,

unless the request is objected to, in which event the reasons for the objection shall be stated.” A

party is obliged to produce all specified relevant and nonprivileged documents or other things which

are in its “possession, custody or control” on the date specified in the request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a);

Norman Rockwell Int’l Corp. V. H. Wolfe Iron & Metal Co., 576 F. Supp. 511, 512 (W.D. Pa.

1983). The propounding party may seek an order for further disclosure regarding “any objection to

or other failure to respond to the request or any part thereof, or any failure to permit inspection

requested.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b). Failure to respond to a Rule 34 request within the time permitted

waives all objections, including privilege and work product. Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling

Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992).

C. Requests for Production

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the production of documents. Twenty-one (21) separate

document requests are included in the request. These requests may be grouped into several

categories, and will be addressed as such herein.

1-A. Requests for Documents Pertaining to Navy EEO Processes and Personnel

Document Requests 1 through 10 and 17 through 20 (Doc. 52) pertain to Navy EEO

administrative processes, the personnel charged with running such processes and the attorneys

responsible for representing Defendant, from the highest levels of the Navy down through

subordinate layers of Naval administrative units. The requests are as follows:

1. Produce all investigations (civil and/or criminal), surveys, evaluations, reviews,

reports, analyses, estimates, assessments and portrayals of the Equal Employment

Opportunity process and organization of the Defendant, and his Naval Air Systems

Command, together with its subordinate Division and other Headquarters’ and field

activities for the period 01/01/1996 to the present.

2. Produce all investigations (civil and/or criminal), surveys, evaluations, reviews,

reports, analyses, inquiries, questionnaires, estimates, assessments and portrayals of

the activities of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Civilian Personnel and

Equal Employment Opportunity, Betty Welch, for the period 01/01/1996 to the

present.

///

Case 1:03-cv-06903-LJO -TAG Document 59 Filed 12/14/05 Page 3 of 11
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

3. Produce all investigations (civil and/or criminal), concerning the actions of the

former Equal Employment Opportunity Office for the Naval Air Systems Command,

Vice Admiral Joseph Dyer, for the period 01/01/1996 to the present.

4. Produce all investigations concerning the actions of the former Equal Employment

Opportunity Officer for the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, Rear

Admiral Charles Johnston for the period 01/01/1996 to the present.

5. Produce all investigations (civil and/or criminal), surveys, evaluations, reviews,

reports, analyses, inquiries, questionnaires, estimates, assessments and portrayals of

the Deputy Equal Employment Opportunity Office for the Naval Air Systems

Command, Mr. Harry Carter for the period 01/01/96 to the present. This specifically

includes Navy Inspector General Report of Investigation; SENIOR OFFICIAL CASE

20000810; ALLEGED ABUSE OF POSITION/COVER-UP BY (redacted) NAVAL

AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, MD, dated 30 August 2001 (as

Defendant Counsel has previously described as , “a redacted transcript from an

unidentified individual for an unidentified proceeding.”).

6. Produce all investigations (civil and/or criminal), surveys, evaluations, reviews,

reports, analyses, inquiries, questionnaires, estimates, assessments and portrayals of

the Deputy Equal Employment Opportunity officer for the Naval Air Warfare Center

Weapons Division, Ms. Arlene Black, for the period 01/01/1996 to the present.

7. Produce all Equal Employment Opportunity, Merit Protection and/or Whistle

Blower Complaints lodge against or by any of the above named senior Equal

Employment Opportunity officials for the period 01/01/1996 to the present.

8. Produce all documents pertaining to the dissolution and

reformation/reorganization of the office and organization of the Deputy Equal

Employment Opportunity Officer for the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons

Division for the period 01/01/1995 to the present.

9. Produce all investigations (civil and/or criminal), surveys, evaluations, reviews,

analyses, inquiries, questionnaires, estimates, assessments and portrayals pertaining to

the conduct and/or dissolution and reformation/reorganization of the office and

organization of the Naval Complaints Administration and Review Division (acronym:

NAVCARD).

10. Produce all organization charts for the Deputy Equal Employment Opportunity

Officer for the Naval Air Systems Command, together with all reporting requirements

(both superior and subordinate), detailed organizational structures, reporting

procedures, lines of authority and responsibility, a listing of all periodic requirements

at every level of the organization, a listing of all standard and special forms utilized

and the names, titles, position descriptions of all individuals employed by, assigned

to, or otherwise tasked by the Deputy Equal Employment Opportunity Officer and/or

his Office.

17. Produce all complaints, investigations (civil and/or criminal), surveys,

evaluations, reviews, reports, analyses, estimates, assessments and portrayals of,

relating to, or concerning Defendant employee Earl Phillips, Director of Defendant’s

Equal Employment Opportunity Programs Office and/or the Equal Employment

Office Programs organization from the period 01/01/1996 to the present.

///

Case 1:03-cv-06903-LJO -TAG Document 59 Filed 12/14/05 Page 4 of 11
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

5

18. Produce all complaints, investigations (civil and/or criminal), surveys,

evaluations, reviews, reports, analyses, estimates, assessments and portrayals of,

relating to, or concerning the actions of Defendant attorney Leonard Rippey from the

period 01/01/1996 to the present.

19. Produce all complaints, investigations (civil and/or criminal), surveys,

evaluations, reviews, reports, analyses, estimates, assessments and portrayals of,

relating to, or concerning the actions of any member of Defendant’s Office of General

Counsel (including all subordinate staff Counsel) relating to any questionable and/or

improper involvement in the Equal Employment Opportunity, Merit Protection, or

Whistle Blower activities of Defendant employees from the period 01/01/1996 to the

present.

20. Produce all complaints, investigations (civil and/or criminal), surveys,

evaluations, reviews, reports, analyses, estimates, assessments and portrayals of,

relating to, or concerning the actions of Defendant attorney/EEO staff

employee/Agency Representative Tamara Morrison, together with all of

Ms. Morrison’s position description(s), performance evaluations and complete official

personnel file for her entire tenure with the United States Government.

1-B. Defendant’s Objections

Defendant objects to the foregoing document requests on the grounds that they are

compound, overbroad, vague and ambiguous, seek information not relevant to the allegations in this

case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and, finally, that

they seek information protected from disclosure by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a). (Doc. 56.) In

addition, as to Plaintiff’s eighteenth through twentieth document requests, Defendant asserts the

attorney-client and work product privileges. (Doc. 56.)

1-C. Analysis and Ruling

The Court finds that the information requested in Plaintiff’s first through tenth and

seventeenth through eighteenth requests for production of documents is not relevant to the instant

complaint and cannot be obtained. First, the information requested pertains either to the entire

Department of the Navy or, even when limited by Plaintiff, to a subset of facilities spanning several 

Naval facilities beyond the China Lake site where Plaintiff worked. Such a broad request for

production has no basis in law or in the facts alleged in the complaint. See Rennie v. Dalton, 3 F.3d

1100, 1100 (7th Cir. 1993)(in sex discrimination and retaliation case filed against Navy, discovery

was denied as to personnel who worked in different settings); Roger v. Electronic Data Systems,

Corp., 155 F.R.D. 537, 540 (E.D.N.C. 1994)(in disparate treatment case, discovery limited to same

division in which plaintiff was employed); Prouty v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 99 F.R.D.

Case 1:03-cv-06903-LJO -TAG Document 59 Filed 12/14/05 Page 5 of 11
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

6

545, 547 (D.D.C. 1983)(in age discrimination matter, discovery limited to the specific department in

which plaintiff worked). Second, the information requested pertains to the Navy’s equal

employment opportunity administrative process - and the persons charged with running it - generally. 

It therefore is beyond the scope of evidence that might be relevant or that might otherwise be

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence and, instead, would pose an undue

burden upon Defendant. Finally, and as to Plaintiff’s eighteenth through twentieth document

requests, even if some of the information sought were relevant (although the Court finds otherwise)

it is protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s first through

tenth and seventeenth through twentieth requests for production of documents.

2-A. Requests for Documents Pertaining to Plaintiff

Document Requests 11 and 15 (Doc. 52) pertain to documents concerning Plaintiff himself. 

The requests are as follows:

11. Produce all documents, not previously provided, concerning Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s

Equal Employment Opportunity, Merit Protection and Whistle Blower complaints

against Defendant, Defendant employees and naval officers.

15. Produce all documents of the Defendant not previously provided that relate to

Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s various protected rights, including Plaintiff’s various Equal

Employment Opportunity, Merit Protection and Whistle Blower complaints, as well

as Plaintiff’s various Freedom of Information Act requests and requests from United

States Senator Dianne Feinstein concerning or related to Plaintiff.

2-B. Defendant’s Objections

Defendant objects to the foregoing document requests on the grounds that they are

compound, overbroad, vague and ambiguous, and seek information protected by the attorney-client

or work product privilege. Defendant states, however, that all non-privileged responsive documents

have already been produced to Plaintiff. (Doc. 56.)

2-C. Analysis and Ruling

At the hearing on Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, Plaintiff clarified the intent

of his requests for additional documents pertaining to him yet still in the possession of Defendant. 

According to Plaintiff, there were about twenty-five files on the local hard drive, often known as the

“C” drive, of his work computer which pertained to his various complaints against Defendant.

///

Case 1:03-cv-06903-LJO -TAG Document 59 Filed 12/14/05 Page 6 of 11
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

7

In essence, it appeared that Plaintiff was keeping track of his EEO proceedings while at work in

China Lake.

Computer files are discoverable. Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 60 F. Supp. 2d 1050,

1053-54 (S.D. Cal. 1999)(information on a hard drive is discoverable). The Court therefore

GRANTS Plaintiff’s eleventh and fifteenth requests for production of documents as modified at the

hearing by Plaintiff to relate solely and exclusively to files on the local or “C” drive of his work

computer. Defendant is therefore ORDERED to make reasonable, good faith efforts to locate

Plaintiff’s work-related personal computer and to produce to Plaintiff the contents of the local or

“C” drive of such computer to the extent such records pertain to the matters encompassed in

Plaintiff’s eleventh and fifteenth request for production of documents.

3-A. Requests for Documents Pertaining to “Closing Ranks”

Document Request 12 (Doc. 52) pertains to an alleged Naval practice termed “closing ranks”

by Plaintiff. The request is as follows:

12. Produce all documents concerning the Defendant’s general practice of ‘closing

ranks’ as it applied in Defendant’s organization from 01/01/1996 to the present time

and specifically the issue of Defendant’s ‘closing ranks’ against Plaintiff.

3-B. Defendant’s Objections

Defendant objects to the foregoing document request on the ground that it is compound,

overbroad, and vague and ambiguous. Defendant states, however, that it is not aware of any

responsive documents. (Doc. 56.)

3-C. Analysis and Ruling

In light of Plaintiff’s representation at the hearing on this matter that the concept of “closing

ranks” pertains to the practice of soldiers standing closer to one another when under fire, and in light

of Defendant’s avowal that it is unaware of any responsive documents, the Court finds that the

nature of the information sought in this request for production of documents is simply too vague and

ambiguous to require further document review by Defendant. The Court therefore DENIES

Plaintiff’s twelfth request for production of documents.

///

///

Case 1:03-cv-06903-LJO -TAG Document 59 Filed 12/14/05 Page 7 of 11
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

8

4-A. Requests for Documents Pertaining to All Prior Complaints

Document Requests 13 and 16 (Doc. 52) pertain to all prior Equal Employment Opportunity,

merit Protection and Whistle Blower complaints against the Naval Air Systems Command as well as

all complaints relating to a 1999 reduction in force at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons

Division. The requests are as follows:

13. Produce a listing of all Equal Employment Opportunity, Merit Protection and

Whistle Blower complaints (both formal and informal) lodge against Defendant’s

Naval Air Systems Command (including all military officers and employees), its

subordinate and field activities of any form or kind whatsoever, including identities of

complainants, time period, nature of complaint and disposition or current status.

16. Produce all complaints, investigations, surveys, evaluations, reviews, reports,

analyses, estimates, assessments and portrayals of, relating to, or concerning the

November, 1999 Reduction-in-Force at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons

Division.

4-B. Defendant’s Objections

Defendant objects to the foregoing document requests on the ground that they are compound,

overbroad, vague and ambiguous, seek information not relevant to the allegations in this case and not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and, finally, that they seek

information protected from disclosure by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a). (Doc. 56.)

4-C. Analysis and Ruling

The Court finds that the information sought is overbroad insofar as it encompasses either the

entire Naval Air Systems Command and its facilities around the globe (Document Request 13) or the

entire Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division and its many facilities (Document Request 16) . 

The Court therefore DENIES plaintiff’s thirteenth and sixteenth requests for production of

documents.

5-A. Requests for Personnel Files

Document Requests 14 and 21 (Doc. 52) pertain to the personnel files of potential witnesses

in Plaintiff’s case. The requests are as follows:

14. Produce the complete personnel record for Defendant’s witness Patricia Hail,

together with all other records or investigations of civil and/or criminal acts

perpetrated or alleged to have been perpetrated by Ms. Hail during her entire Federal

career.

///

Case 1:03-cv-06903-LJO -TAG Document 59 Filed 12/14/05 Page 8 of 11
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

9

21. Produce all complaints, investigations (civil and/or criminal), surveys,

evaluations, reviews, reports, analyses, estimates, assessments and portrayals of,

relating to, or concerning the actions of Defendant employees/witnesses Helen

Cropper, Karen Haden and former Defendant employee Dr. Douglas Haden.

5-B. Defendant’s Objections

Defendant objects to the foregoing document requests on the ground that they are compound,

overbroad, vague and ambiguous, seek information not relevant to the allegations in this case and not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and, finally, that they seek

information protected from disclosure by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a). (Doc. 56.)

5-C. Analysis and Ruling

Plaintiff averred during the hearing on this matter that defense witness Patricia Hail made a

death threat against him in the past. This information might well be relevant in addressing the

credibility of Ms. Hail as a witness. Plaintiff averred during the hearing that Karen Haden accused

him of using inappropriate language at work. Plaintiff also contended that Karen Haden removed

computer equipment from the office, that he reported her conduct, and thereafter he was retaliated

against. Plaintiff also averred during the hearing that Karen Haden accused Plaintiff of using

inappropriate language at work. Plaintiff also averred during the hearing that he had reported

personal information regarding Helen Cropper to his or her superiors at work. While Defendant has

objected to the disclosure of personnel files under the Privacy Act, the Court notes that a “[f]ederal

district court’s determination regarding [the] propriety” of disclosing information protected by the

Privacy Act “does not turn on privilege analysis, but instead on discovery standards set forth in [the]

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Wallman v. Tower Air, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 566, 569 (N.D. Cal.

1999)(citing Laxalt v. McClatchy, 809 F.2d 885, 888 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). Wallman concluded that

there was “no basis for inferring that the [Privacy Act] replaces the usual discovery standards of the

FRCP - in particular, Rules 26 and 45(b) - with a different and higher standard.” 189 F.R.D. at 599.

Accordingly, the personnel files of Patricia Hail, Karen Haden, and Helen Cropper - during

the period of Plaintiff’s employment and only as they pertain to investigations of their conduct

involving Plaintiff - are relevant and discoverable. While discoverable, this Court finds good cause -

the standard under Rule 45(c) - for the issuance of a protective order vis-a-vis the means of

Case 1:03-cv-06903-LJO -TAG Document 59 Filed 12/14/05 Page 9 of 11
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

10

disclosure of these personnel records. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s fourteenth and

twenty-first requests for production of documents, the personnel records of Patricia Hail, Helen

Cropper and Karen Haden - limited to the time period of Plaintiff’s employment and further

specifically limited to any investigations as of their conduct involving Plaintiff. In light of the highly

speculative rationale for discovery of Dr. Haden’s personnel file as described by Plaintiff at the

hearing on this matter, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for disclosure of Dr. Haden’s personnel

file.

By way of protective order, the Court further ORDERS that the discoverable records in the

personnel files of Patricia Hail, Karen Haden, and Helen Cropper, if they exist, shall be numbered,

and redacted to omit confidential personal information such as social security numbers, addresses,

family information, health and benefit information, financial information, current employment, and

any other personal identifying information beyond name. Once redacted, such documents shall be

made available by Defendant for inspection and copying by Plaintiff. Such documents shall not be

disseminated or used in any manner outside of these court proceedings. If a further, more restrictive

protective order is requested, the Court will consider a motion requesting the same. 

ORDERS

Based on the foregoing, the Court makes the following orders:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Document Request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,

12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Document Request Nos. 11 and 15 is GRANTED

as limited to relate solely and exclusively to files on the local or “C” drive of

Plaintiff’s work computer. Defendant is therefore ORDERED to make reasonable,

good faith efforts to locate Plaintiff’s work-related personal computer and to produce

to Plaintiff the contents of the local or “C” drive of such computer to the extent such

records pertain to the matters encompassed in Plaintiff’s eleventh and fifteenth

request for production of documents.

///

///

Case 1:03-cv-06903-LJO -TAG Document 59 Filed 12/14/05 Page 10 of 11
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

11

3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Document Request Nos. 14 and 21 is DENIED as

to Dr. Douglas Haden but is GRANTED as limited to the personnel records of

Patricia Hail, Karen Haden, and Helen Cropper during the time period of Plaintiff’s

employment with Defendant and as further limited to only those investigations of

their conduct involving Plaintiff.

4. The Court GRANTS the following PROTECTIVE ORDER regarding the

discoverable records, if any, produced from the personnel files of Patricia Hale, Karen

Haden, and Helen Cropper: 

A. Each page of every document produced must be numbered, and redacted to

omit confidential personal information such as social security numbers,

addresses, family information, health and benefit information, financial

information, salary information, current employment, and any other personal

identifying information beyond name.

B. Once numbered and redacted, such documents shall be made available by

Defendant for inspection and copying by Plaintiff.

C. Such documents shall not be disseminated or used in any manner outside

of these court proceedings.

If a further, more restrictive protective order is requested, the Court will consider a

subsequent, duly noticed motion requesting the same. 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER SHALL RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF

SANCTIONS.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06903-LJO -TAG Document 59 Filed 12/14/05 Page 11 of 11