Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05771/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05771-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FIDELIA DEL CARMEN MAY CAN, 

et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 16-cv-05771-TEH 

ORDER RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER 

AND ORDER OF REFERRAL 

 

The Court has reviewed the parties’ competing proposals for a protective order. 

Plaintiffs propose that the Court adopt its model protective order for standard litigation. 

Defendants propose three substantive changes to the model order: (1) broadening the scope 

of what is included within the definition of “confidential” information; (2) removing 

language that exempts from the protective order material that is or subsequently becomes 

part of the public domain; and (3) shifting the burden of justifying a confidential 

designation from the designating party to the challenging party. 

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the model protective order for standard 

litigation is appropriate. Defendants make verbatim many of the same arguments they 

raised in Woods, a case pending in this district before Judge William Orrick. Compare 

ECF No. 31, at 3-5, with Gwendolyn Woods v. City and County of San Francisco, Case 

No. 15-cv-05666 WHO, ECF No. 35, at 2-4. Judge Orrick rejected those arguments, 

concluding that: 

It may well be that the official information privilege will apply 

to many of the documents that defendants will produce in this 

case. But I agree with plaintiff that this district’s model 

protective order for standard litigation is the more appropriate 

protective order here; it affords adequate protection to the 

confidentiality concerns of each party and will by no means 

prevent defendants from maintaining the confidentiality of 

information related to the criminal investigation where 

 

Case 3:16-cv-05771-JCS Document 33 Filed 04/04/17 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

2 

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 

appropriate. Notwithstanding the use of defendants’ proposed 

order in some other cases in this district, there is no good cause 

to shift the burden on establishing the propriety of the 

designation of confidential documents. 

Woods, ECF No. 36, at 1-2. This Court agrees. Defendants have also failed to justify why 

documents in the public domain should be subject to a protective order. Nor have 

Defendants even attempted to argue that the model protective order adopted in Woods has 

been insufficient to safeguard their interests. Accordingly, the Court will sign and file a 

version of the proposed protective order submitted by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs shall email an 

electronic version of their proposed order to tehpo@cand.uscourts.gov, and the Court will 

enter it as an order after removing reference to any stipulation by the parties. 

 Disputes regarding confidentiality designations and all other discovery disputes are 

hereby REFERRED to a magistrate judge. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 04/04/17 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-05771-JCS Document 33 Filed 04/04/17 Page 2 of 2