Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01438/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01438-0/pdf.json

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

---

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.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BARRY KLIFF,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-1438 JW PVT

ORDER RE STIPULATED

PROTECTIVE ORDER

On August 18, 2005, the parties filed a form of Stipulated Protective Order.1 Based on the

form of order presented,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than September 15, 2005, the parties shall submit a

revised form of Stipulated Protective Order that allows the parties themselves to have access to

information designated “Confidential.” The parties have based their form of protective order on this

court’s model form of Stipulated Protective Order, but have modified the form in one respect that is

unacceptable to the court. By excluding the parties themselves from the categories of people entitled

to have access to “Confidential” information, the proposed form of Stipulated Protective Order

effectively creates two categories of “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designations, one which

Case 5:05-cv-01438-JW Document 20 Filed 08/31/05 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 2

It is unclear why experts who are allowed access to “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes

Only” information would not be allowed access to the less sensitive “Confidential” information.

ORDER, page 2

allows experts to have access and one which does not.2 However, the court’s model form of

Stipulated Protective Order is designed to assign the correct legal standard to the two designation

categories. The standard for designating information “Confidential” (that the information qualifies

for protection under the standards developed under F.R.Civ.P. 26(c)) does not adequately set forth

the proper standard to use for a designation that precludes a party (and those of its employees to

whom disclosure is reasonably necessary in connection with the litigation) from directly accessing

the information. In order to justify the latter kind of designation, commonly referred to as

“Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” information must be extremely sensitive confidential

information the disclosure of which to another party or nonparty would create a substantial risk of

serious injury that could not be avoided by a device less restrictive of a party’s access to his lawyer. 

See Doe v. Dist. of Columbia, 697 F.2d 1115, 1120 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

Pending issuance of the final form of Protective Order, the parties may designate information

“Confidential” or “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the terms of the proposed form of

Stipulated Protective Order, as it will be modified to allow parties (and those employees of a party to

whom disclosure is reasonably necessary in connection with the litigation) to have access to

“Confidential” information. The parties shall treat all such designated materials as mandated by the

terms of the proposed form of Stipulated Protective Order, as so modified.

Dated: 8/31/05

 /s/ Patricia V. Trumbull 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01438-JW Document 20 Filed 08/31/05 Page 2 of 2