Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02351/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02351-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other 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 

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Adiba Mahroom, an individual; Majid 

Mahroom, an individual; 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Best Western International, Inc., an 

Arizona non-profit corporation; and 

Does 1 through 100, inclusive; 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. C07-2351-JF 

AMENDED STIPULATED

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

WITH ADDENDUM

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) for the purpose of 

facilitating the exchange of Confidential Information, filing of such Confidential 

Information under seal with the Court, and protecting against the unauthorized 

disclosure, dissemination, or use of such Confidential Information, and the Court 

finding good cause therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following 

Protective Order shall be in place in the above-captioned matter: 

*E-filed 9/17/07*

Case 5:07-cv-02351-JF Document 96 Filed 09/17/07 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 - 

1. Definitions 

1.1 Confidential Information 

“Confidential Information” means any document, writing, tangible thing of 

any type that any of the parties, through counsel, designate in good faith as 

containing information of the parties that is: (a) not generally known by or 

available to members of the public; or (b) proprietary business, commercial, or 

financial information, such as trade secrets, future business plans, customer lists, 

personnel information; or (c) protected by the right to privacy under any state or 

federal constitutional provisions, or any similar statute, rule, or regulation; or (d) 

potentially damaging to the business or personal interests of said party if disclosed. 

Confidential Information is not strictly limited to the document, writing, or 

tangible thing at issue, and does expressly include the information contained within 

any document, writing, or tangible thing. 

1.2 Dissemination 

For purposes of this Protective Order, the term “disseminate,” 

“disseminated,” and/or “dissemination” includes: (1) filing a document or 

information under any Court’s electronic filing system, including the District Court 

for the Northern District of California’s ECF filing system; (2) distributing any 

document or information via facsimile, e-mail, or U.S. Mail; and/or (3) distributing 

or publishing any document or information on any website accessible to the 

general public on the world wide web. 

2. Duties Of The Parties 

2.1 Duty To Examine Documents And Maintain The Confidentiality 

Of Confidential Information 

Information designated as Confidential Information under this Protective 

Order shall be treated by the parties and their counsel as confidential, such that: (1) 

such information may be reviewed only by persons so authorized by this Protective 

Order and who have agreed to be bound by the terms of this Protective Order, and 

Case 5:07-cv-02351-JF Document 96 Filed 09/17/07 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 - 

(2) may be copied by such persons only for purposes of this litigation and may not 

be used for any collateral proceeding or matter. 

Each of the parties has a duty to ensure that any documents to be publicly 

filed and disseminated do not fall under the “Confidential Information” category 

described above under the terms of the Protective Order. 

2.2 Duty To File Confidential Information Under Seal 

If any Confidential Information is sought to be included in any papers to be 

filed with the Court, the party filing it has the duty to file it under seal. This 

Protective Order authorizes the Clerk of Court to accept such filings and file them 

under seal until further Order of this Court. 

2.3 Duty To Properly Designate Confidential Information 

A party who files any Confidential Information with the Court must 

designate such document as “Confidential” by marking the document with the 

word “Confidential” prior to filing with the Court. Any party that marks a 

document “Confidential” is certifying to the Court that there is a reasonable and 

good faith basis both in law and in fact for making such a designation. 

2.4 Duty To Disclose Confidential Information Only To Qualified 

Persons 

Information designated as Confidential Information shall be disclosed only 

to the following “Qualified Persons”: 

a. The parties and their counsel of record and support staff (including 

secretaries, paralegals, and clerks) engaged in the conduct of this litigation and any 

officers, directors, or employees of BWI deemed necessary by counsel to aid in the 

prosecution, defense, or settlement of this action; 

b. experts or consultants (together with their clerical staff) retained by 

such counsel to assist in the prosecution, defense, or settlement of this action; 

c. court reporters employed in this action; 

d. a witness at any deposition or other proceeding in this action; and 

Case 5:07-cv-02351-JF Document 96 Filed 09/17/07 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 - 

e. any other person as to whom the parties in writing agree. 

2.5 Duty To Ensure The Signing Of Non-Disclosure Agreements 

Prior to receiving any Confidential Information, each Qualified Person 

(other than those identified in paragraphs 2.4(a) and (b) above) shall be provided 

with a copy of the Protective Order and shall execute an agreement to be bound by 

the Protective Order in the form of Exhibit A. After the conclusion of this 

litigation, each party obtaining such agreements shall, upon request, provide copies 

of such agreements to the other parties. 

3. Rights Of The Parties 

Nothing herein shall impose any restrictions on the use or disclosure by a 

party of material obtained by such party by means independent of discovery from 

the adverse party in this action, whether or not such material is also obtained 

through discovery in this action, or from disclosing its own Confidential 

Information in any manner it deems appropriate. 

This Protective Order shall be without prejudice to the rights of the parties 

to: 

(1) bring before the Court at any time the question of whether any 

particular document or category of documents is Confidential Information or 

whether its use should be restricted; 

(2) present a motion to the Court for a separate protective order or 

provision in the Protective Order as to any particular document, thing, material, 

testimony ,or information, including restrictions differing from those as specified 

herein; 

(3) assert privilege (including but not limited to trade secret privilege) and 

decline to produce any documents or information on that basis; 

(4) make a future application for modification of the Protective Order, 

including modifications specific to any particular documents, information, or 

Case 5:07-cv-02351-JF Document 96 Filed 09/17/07 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 - 

things, and challenges to any designation of particular documents or information as 

being Confidential Information. 

The Protective Order shall survive the final termination of this action, to the 

extent that the information contained in Confidential Information is not or does not 

become known to the public, and the Court shall retain jurisdiction to resolve any 

dispute concerning the use of Confidential Information disclosed hereunder. 

After final termination of this case upon reasonable demand, counsel for the 

parties shall assemble and either (a) return to the producing party all documents 

designated as Confidential Information and all Confidential Information derived 

from such documents or (b) shall destroy such documents and Confidential 

Information and certify to the producing party under oath that such documents and 

Confidential Information have been destroyed. 

SO ORDERED this _____ day of _________________, 20 . 

Howard R. Lloyd 

United States Magistrate Judge

become known to the public. The Court shall retain jurisdiction for 6 months following final 

termination of this action to resolve any dispute concerning the use of Confidential 

Information disclosed hereunder. 17th September 07

Case 5:07-cv-02351-JF Document 96 Filed 09/17/07 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 - 

 

 

Entered into this 12th day of September, 2007. 

 By: s/John C. Gorman by Allison Harvey

 John C. Gorman (Bar No. 91515) 

 Charles J. Stiegler (Bar No. 245973) 

 GORMAN & MILLER, P.C. 

 210 North Fourth Street, Suite 200 

 San Jose, California 95112 

 Tel: 408.297.2222 

 Fax: 408. 297.2224 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 Adiba and Majid Mahroom 

 

 By: s/Allison Harvey 

 

 Antony Buchignani (Bar No. 186528) 

 antony.buchignani@dlapiper.com 

 DLA PIPER US LLP 

 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Fourth Floor 

 Los Angeles, California 90067-6022 

 Tel: 310.595.3000 

 Fax: 310.595.3300 

 Jeffery M. Hamerling (Bar. No. 91532) 

 jeffrey.hamerling@dlapiper.com 

 DLA PIPER US LLP 

 153 Townsend Street, Suite 800 

 San Francisco, California 94107-1957 

 Tel: 415.836.2500 

 Fax: 415.836.2501 

 

Case 5:07-cv-02351-JF Document 96 Filed 09/17/07 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 - 

 Cynthia A. Ricketts (pro hac vice) 

 cindy.ricketts@dlapiper.com 

 Allison L. Harvey (pro hac vice) 

 allison.harvey@dlapiper.com 

 DLA Piper US LLP 

 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 700 

 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 

 Tel: 480.606.5100 

 Fax: 480. 606.5101 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 Best Western International, Inc. 

Case 5:07-cv-02351-JF Document 96 Filed 09/17/07 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 - 

Exhibit A 

AGREEMENT TO ADHERE TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 

REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION 

I acknowledge that I have received a copy of the Protective Order entered by 

the Court in Adiba Mahroom, et al. v. Best Western International, Inc., et al., C07-

2351-JF, United States District Court for the Northern District of California and 

dated _____________, 20 (the “Order”), that I have read the Order, that I 

understand it, and that I agree to adhere to its terms. 

I further acknowledge that, under the terms of the Order, I am forbidden to 

use or disclose to any person or entity Confidential documents, materials, or 

information that the parties have produced in the above-captioned lawsuit, except 

as expressly permitted under the terms of the Order. 

I understand that if I violate any term of the Order, I may be subject to 

sanctions by the Court. 

DATED this _____ day of _____________, 2007. 

Name: Signature: 

 

 

Case 5:07-cv-02351-JF Document 96 Filed 09/17/07 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

ADDENDUM TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

Mahroom, et al. v. Best Western International, Inc., Case No. C07-02351 JF (HRL)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

I. DEFINITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN:

Designating Party: a Party or non-party that designates information or items that it produces

in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “Confidential.”

Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material designated as “Confidential.”

II. DESIGNATION OF DOCUMENTS

Before designating any specific information “Confidential”, the designating party’s counsel

shall make a good faith determination that the information warrants protection under Rule 26(c) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be

clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or produced. If only a portion or portions of

the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the

protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

The over-designation of documents may result in sanctions. The filing of documents

designated “Confidential” puts an additional burden on the Court. The best way to avoid this result

is for counsel to use best efforts to make appropriate designations at the outset, and to promptly dedesignate a document when it comes to counsel’s attention that the document is over-designated.

Often the party filing the document is not the designating party. In that situation, the party

does not have the option to unilaterally de-designate the documents before submitting them to the

Court, and has no choice but to request they be filed under seal. 

III. CHALLENGING A DESIGNATION

Unless a prompt challenge to a Designating Party’s confidentiality designation is necessary

to avoid foreseeable substantial unfairness, unnecessary economic burdens, or a later significant

disruption or delay of the litigation, a Party does not waive its right to challenge a confidentiality

designation by electing not to mount a challenge promptly after the original designation is disclosed.

Case 5:07-cv-02351-JF Document 96 Filed 09/17/07 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

2

A Party that elects to initiate a challenge to a Designating Party’s confidentiality designation

must do so in good faith and must begin the process by conferring directly (in voice to voice

dialogue; other forms of communication are not sufficient) with counsel for the Designating Party.

In conferring, the challenging Party must explain the basis for its belief that the confidentiality

designation was not proper and must give the Designating Party an opportunity to review the

designated material, to reconsider the circumstances, and, if no change in designation is offered, to

explain the basis for the chosen designation. A challenging Party may proceed to the next stage of

the challenge process only if it has engaged in this meet and confer process first. 

A Party that elects to press a challenge to a confidentiality designation after considering the

justification offered by the Designating Party may seek appropriate relief from the Court. The

burden of persuasion on any such motion shall be on the party claiming confidentiality.

IV. REQUESTS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

Any party wishing to file under seal any document(s) designated “Confidential” shall lodge

the document(s) along with a Request for Sealing pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5. The

document(s) shall be submitted in an appropriate envelope labeled with the case name and number

and the title of the document(s). Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS

AFTER ANY REQUEST FOR SEALING IS FILED, any party claiming confidentiality for the

information for which sealing is requested shall serve and file declaration(s) from competent

witnesses setting forth specific facts demonstrating that sealing is warranted under Rule 26(c). The

parties are cautioned that “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or

articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. International Ins.

Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108,

1121 (3rd Cir.1986)). See also, Civil Local Rule 79-5 and commentary thereto.

Case 5:07-cv-02351-JF Document 96 Filed 09/17/07 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

3

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS PROVIDED TO:

Antony E. Buchignani antony.buchignani@dlapiper.com, laverne.patane@dlapiper.com 

John C. Gorman jgorman@gormanmiller.com 

Jeffrey Mark Hamerling jeffrey.hamerling@dlapiper.com 

Allison L. Harvey allison.harvey@dlapiper.com 

Rachel Elizabeth King Lowe rachel.lowe@dlapiper.com 

Cynthia A. Ricketts cindy.ricketts@dlapiper.com, kathy.sieckman@dlapiper.com 

Charles Joseph Stiegler cstiegler@gormanmiller.com 

Dated: 9/17/07

By: KRO 

CHAMBERS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE HOWARD R. LLOYD

Case 5:07-cv-02351-JF Document 96 Filed 09/17/07 Page 11 of 11