Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03127/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03127-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

REVOLUTIONARY SOFTWARE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ECLIPSYS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-3127 JW (PVT)

ORDER RE PARTIES’ PROPOSED

FORM OF PROTECTIVE ORDER 

On February 9, 2007, the parties filed a [Proposed] Stipulated Protective Order. Having

reviewed the form of protective order submitted by the parties, the court finds it appropriate to issue

this interim order. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than March 9, 2006, the parties shall file a revised

form of protective order that makes the following changes:

1. Describes the information that may be designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” as

“information (regardless of how generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things

that qualify for protection under standards developed under F.R.Civ.P. 26(c)” without

further elaboration or examples;

2. Describes the information that may be designated as “CONFIDENTIAL –

ATTORNEYS AND CONSULTANTS ONLY” as “extremely sensitive Confidential

information whose disclosure to another party or nonparty would create a substantial

risk of serious injury that could not be avoided by less restrictive means”; 

3. Revises lines 24 & 25 on page 4 to read “In the event any party hereto designates

source code CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS AND CONSULTANTS ONLY, such

source code”

Case 5:05-cv-03127-JW Document 63 Filed 02/26/07 Page 1 of 3
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

The determination of whether a courtroom will be closed during any testimony, or 1

whether testimony taken during any court proceeding will be sealed, will be made by the judge presiding

at the hearing or other court proceeding.

The handling of designated materials during hearings and other court proceedings will 2

be determined by the judge presiding at the hearing or other court proceeding.

Blanket protective orders are intended only to facilitate application of the protections 3

afforded under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c), which does not address the standards applicable

to inadvertent production of privileged or work product information. Any inadvertent production of

privileged or work product information will be handled in accordance with the standards developed by

the courts for those situations. See, e.g., Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Garvey, 109 F.R.D. 323, 331-32

(N.D.Cal. 1985).

ORDER, page 2

4. Revises the sentence beginning in the middle of line 13 on page 5 to read “If

warranted under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c), this information may be

designated CONFIDENTIAL under this Protective Order, in which case it shall be

used solely for the purpose of determining whether any conflicts exist that would

cause any designating party (including designating non-parties) to object to the

disclosure of designated material to that individual”;

5. Omits subparagraph (e) from Paragraph 7. 

1

6. Revises Paragraph 9 to provide that a party seeking to elicit at any hearing, or other

court proceeding, testimony regarding information that has been designated

confidential by another party shall request from the judge presiding at the hearing or

other court proceeding an order protecting the information;

7. Revises Paragraph 11 to provide that a party seeking to file any document that

discloses information designated confidential must follow the procedures set for

under Civil Local Rule 79-5;

8. Revises the last sentence of Paragraph 12 to read “Such disclosure shall not waive the

protections of this Protective Order, and shall not entitle other parties or their

attorneys to disclose such information or documents, absent written agreement of the

designating party (or designating non-party) or order of the court finding that the

information no longer warrants protection under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

26(c);

9. Omits the words “hearing or other proceeding” from Paragraph 13. 

2

10. Revises subparagraph 14(a)(6) to read “prevent the designating party (or designating

non-party) from agreeing in writing or on the record during a deposition or hearing in

this action to waive the provisions or protections provided for herein with respect to

any particular information or material”;

11. Adds the words “in writing” after the first instance of the word “agree” on line 19 of

page 10;

12. Omits paragraph 21;3

13. Adds the words “so long as the judge presiding at the proceeding or appeal has issued

an order protecting the information, and it has not actually been disclosed in open

court” after the word “use” on line 6 of page 13;

Case 5:05-cv-03127-JW Document 63 Filed 02/26/07 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER, page 3

14. Adds the words “request that the judge presiding at the proceeding issue an order

adopting such procedures” after the word “shall” on line 8 of page 13 and omits the

remainder of that sentence; and

15. Replaces the words “respond by setting forth” on line 23 of page 13 with the words

“notify the party seeking access to the information or material of”.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pending entry of the final form of protective order, the

provisions of the parties’ proposed form of protective order, as modified herein, shall govern the

handling of confidential information exchanged or disclosed during discovery in this case.

Dated: 2/26/07

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-03127-JW Document 63 Filed 02/26/07 Page 3 of 3