Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03791/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03791-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

E-Filed 12/1/15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHALIE THUY VAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03791-LHK (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 135

The parties have been unable to stipulate to a mutually agreeable protective order. 

Defendants, with leave of court, move for a protective order; Defendants request that the court 

issue its model protective order in this case. Plaintiff, in her opposition brief, expresses concern 

that Defendants have mass-designated non-confidential documents as confidential documents. 

Plaintiff therefore requests that the court amend the model protective order to explicitly declare 

that certain documents are non-confidential. Plaintiff appeared at the hearing on this motion but 

Defendants’ counsel did not.

In general, the court frowns upon the wholesale designation of documents as confidential. 

Protective orders may shield confidential information from public disclosure where good cause

exists, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), but that good cause must exist as to each individual document. Broad

allegations of harm, absent specific examples, are insufficient. Beckman Industries, Inc. v. 

International Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff claims that many discovery 

materials have been indiscriminately marked as confidential by Defendants without good cause.

For example, Plaintiff argues that Defendants have marked twenty years’ worth of her paystubs as 

confidential without good cause. Defendants do not squarely dispute Plaintiff’s claims about mass 

designations. Rather, Defendants argue Judge Koh found, by granting a prior administrative 

motion, “that [Plaintiff]’s time records and other documents contain Defendant’s confidential, 

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 163 Filed 12/01/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

trade secret, and health care information, the disclosure of which is subject to patient 

confidentiality rules under HIPAA and other regulatory laws.” Dkt. No. 145 at 2 (discussing Dkt. 

No. 131). The undersigned reads Judge Koh’s prior order differently. Judge Koh stated the goodcause standard and concluded that good cause existed to redact certain information within a few

specific documents she had reviewed, Dkt. No. 131 at 2-3, but Judge Koh did not additionally

grant Defendants a wholesale license to designate as confidential thousands of other documents 

she had not reviewed. The undersigned is therefore concerned that Defendants may have 

improperly engaged in wholesale confidentiality designations, including of Plaintiff’s paystubs,

based on a misreading of Judge Koh’s prior order.

In any event, the court shall not resolve disputes about confidentiality designations in this 

order. As explained to Plaintiff during the hearing, the court shall grant Defendant’s motion by 

issuing a protective order, and that protective order shall set general procedures for how 

confidentiality designations may be challenged in this case. Plaintiff may then, in accord with 

those procedures and in accord with the undersigned’s standing order regarding civil discovery 

disputes, discuss her concerns about confidentiality designations with Defendants’ counsel. If the 

parties are unable to agree on which documents should be designated as confidential, then the 

parties may submit a discovery dispute joint report that asks the court to resolve their outstanding 

confidentiality disputes.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 12/1/15

________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 163 Filed 12/01/15 Page 2 of 2