Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01404/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01404-0/pdf.json

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

---

CASE NO. CV 07-01414 MHP 

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

5522823_1

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 

LAFAYETTE & KUMAGAI LLP 

GARY T. LAFAYETTE (State Bar No. 088666) 

glafayette@lkclaw.com

SUSAN T. KUMAGAI (State Bar No. 127667) 

skumagai@lkclaw.com

ERIC R. DEWALT (State Bar No. 13850) 

edewalt@lkclaw.com

100 Spear Street, Suite 600 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Telephone: (415) 357-4600 

Facsimile: (415) 3574605 

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, 

SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 

MARCUS A. MCDANIEL, State Bar No. 151357 

marcus.mcdaniel@ogletreedeakins.com

ANDREA G. DUCKWORTH, State Bar No. 249518 

andrea.duckworth@ogletreedeakins.com 

633 West Fifth Street, 53rd Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90071 

Telephone: (213) 239-9800 

Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KATHERINE ARAGON, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC., a 

corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case No. CV 07-01414 MHP 

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE 

ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

THEREON 

[Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Form] 

April 29, 2008 

Case 3:07-cv-01404-MHP Document 20 Filed 02/27/08 Page 1 of 18
2 CASE NO. CV 07-01414 MHP 

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

5522823_1

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. PURPOSES AND LIMITATION

Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve 

production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 

protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 

prosecuting this litigation would be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby 

stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. 

The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 

disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords extends only 

to the limited information or items that are entitled under the applicable legal 

principles to treatment as confidential. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth 

in Section 10, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order creates no entitlement to 

file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 

procedures that must be followed and reflects the standards that will be applied when 

a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 

2. DEFINITIONS

 2.1 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, 

employees, consultants, retained experts, and outside counsel (and their support 

staff). 

 2.1 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 

of the medium or manner generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other 

things, testimony, transcripts, or tangible things) that are produced or generated in 

disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 

 2.3 “Confidential” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 

generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 

standards developed under F.RCiv.P. 26(c). 

 2.4 “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” Information or Items: 

extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items” whose disclosure to another 

Party or non-party would create a substantial risk of serious injury that could not be 

Case 3:07-cv-01404-MHP Document 20 Filed 02/27/08 Page 2 of 18
3 CASE NO. CV 07-01414 MHP 

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

5522823_1

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 

avoided by less restrictive means. 

 2.5 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 

from a Producing Party. 

 2.6 Producing Party: a Party or non-party that produces Disclosure or 

Discovery Material in this action. 

 2.7 Designating Party: a Party or non-party that designates information or 

items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “Confidential” or 

“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” 

 2.8 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 

designated as “Confidential” or as “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” 

 2.9 Outside Counsel: attorneys who are not employees of a Party but who 

are retained to represent or advise a Party in this action. 

 2.10 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a Party. 

 2.11 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel and House Counsel (as 

well as their support staffs). 

 2.12 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 

pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 

an expert witness or as a consultant in this action and who is not a past or a current 

employee of a Party or of a competitor of a Party’s and who, at the time of retention, 

is not anticipated to become an employee of a Party or a competitor of a Party’s. 

This definition includes a professional jury or trial consultant retained in connection 

with this litigation. 

 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 

services (e.g., photocopying; videotaping; translating; preparing exhibits or 

demonstrations; organizing, storing, retrieving data in any form or medium; etc.) and 

their employees and subcontractors. 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:07-cv-01404-MHP Document 20 Filed 02/27/08 Page 3 of 18
4 CASE NO. CV 07-01414 MHP 

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

5522823_1

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. SCOPE

 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 

Protected Material (as defined above), but also any information copied or extracted 

therefrom, as well as all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations thereof, plus 

testimony, conversations, or presentations by parties or counsel to or in court or in 

other settings that might reveal Protected Material. 

4. DURATION

 Even after the termination of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations 

imposed by this Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees 

otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs. 

5. DESIGNATION OF PROTECTED MATERIAL

5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection. 

Each Party or non-party that designates information or items for protection under this 

Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies 

under the appropriate standards. A Designating Party must take care to designate for 

protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or oral or written 

communications that qualify – so that other portions of the material, documents, 

items, or communications for which protection is not warranted are not swept 

unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order. 

Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. Designations 

that are shown to be clearly unjustified, or that have been made for an improper 

purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily encumber or retard the case development process, or 

to impose unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties), expose the 

Designating Party to sanctions. 

If it comes to a Party’s or a non-party’s attention that information or items that 

it designated for protection do not qualify for protection at all, or do not qualify for 

the level of protection initially asserted, that Party or non-party must promptly notify 

all other parties that it is withdrawing the mistaken designation. 

Case 3:07-cv-01404-MHP Document 20 Filed 02/27/08 Page 4 of 18
5 CASE NO. CV 07-01414 MHP 

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

5522823_1

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 

5.2 Manner and Timing of Designations. Except as otherwise provided in 

this Order (see, e.g., second paragraph of section 5.2(a), below), or as otherwise 

stipulated or ordered, material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be 

clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or produced. 

Designation in conformity with this Order requires:

(a) for information in documentary form (apart from transcripts of 

depositions or other pretrial or trial proceedings), that the Producing Party affix the 

legend “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” at the top of each page that contains protected material 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) and must specify, for each portion, the level of protection 

being asserted (either “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”). 

A Party or non-party that makes original documents or materials available for 

inspection need not designate them for protection until after the inspecting Party has 

indicated which material it would like copied and produced. During the inspection 

and before the designation, all of the material made available for inspection shall be 

deemed “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” After the 

inspecting Party has identified the documents it wants copied and produced, the 

Producing Party must determine which documents, or portions thereof, qualify for 

protection under this Order, then, before producing the specified documents, the 

Producing Party must affix the appropriate legend (“CONFIDENTIAL” or 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”) at the top of each 

page that contains Protected Material. 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) and must 

specify, for each portion, the level of protection being asserted (either 

Case 3:07-cv-01404-MHP Document 20 Filed 02/27/08 Page 5 of 18
6 CASE NO. CV 07-01414 MHP 

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

5522823_1

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 

“CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES 

ONLY”). 

(b) for testimony given in deposition or in other pretrial or trial 

proceedings, that the Party or non-party offering or sponsoring the testimony identify 

on the record, before the close of the deposition, hearing, or other proceeding, all 

protected testimony, and further specify any portions of the testimony that qualify as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” When it is 

impractical to identify separately each portion of testimony that is entitled to 

protection, and when it appears that substantial portions of the testimony may qualify 

for protection, the Party or non-party that sponsors, offers, or gives the testimony 

may invoke on the record (before the deposition or proceeding is concluded) a right 

to have up to 20 days to identify the specific portions of the testimony as to which 

protection is sought and to specify the level of protection being asserted 

(“CONFIDENTIAL” or `HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES 

ONLY”). Only those portions of the testimony that are appropriately designated for 

protection within the 20 days shall be covered by the provisions of this Stipulated 

Protective Order. 

Transcript pages containing Protected Material must be separately bound by 

the court reporter, who must affix to the top of each such page the legend 

“CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES 

ONLY,” as instructed by the Party or non-party offering or sponsoring the witness or 

presenting the testimony. 

(c) for information produced in some form other than documentary, and for 

any other tangible items, that the Producing Party affix in a prominent place on the 

exterior of the container or containers in which the information or item is stored the 

legend “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS’ EYES 

ONLY.” If only portions of the information or item warrant protection, the 

Producing Party, to the extent practicable, shall identify the protected portions, 

Case 3:07-cv-01404-MHP Document 20 Filed 02/27/08 Page 6 of 18
7 CASE NO. CV 07-01414 MHP 

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

5522823_1

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 

specifying whether they qualify as “Confidential” or as “Highly Confidential – 

Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” 

5.3 Inadvertent Failures to Designate. If timely corrected, an inadvertent 

failure to designate qualified information or items as “Confidential” or “Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” does not, standing alone, waive the 

Designating Party’s right to secure protection under this Order for such material. If 

material is appropriately designated as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – 

Attorneys’ Eyes Only” after the material was initially produced, the Receiving Party, 

on timely notification of the designation, must make reasonable efforts to assure that 

the material is treated in accordance with the provisions of this Order. 

6. CHALLENGING CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS

6.1 Timing of Challenges. 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. 

6.2 Meet and Confer. 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. 

6.3 Judicial Intervention. A Party that elects to press a challenge to a 

Case 3:07-cv-01404-MHP Document 20 Filed 02/27/08 Page 7 of 18
8 CASE NO. CV 07-01414 MHP 

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

5522823_1

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 

confidentiality designation after considering the justification offered by the 

Designating Party may file and serve a motion under Civil Local Rule 7 (and in 

compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5, if applicable) that identifies the challenged 

material and sets forth in detail the basis for the challenge. Each such motion must be 

accompanied by a competent declaration that affirms that the movant has complied 

with the meet and confer requirements imposed in the preceding paragraph and that 

sets forth with specificity the justification for the confidentiality designation that was 

given by the Designating Party in the meet and confer dialogue. 

The burden of persuasion in any such challenge proceeding shall be on the 

Designating Party. Until the court rules on the challenge, all parties shall continue to 

afford the material in question the level of protection to which it is entitled under the 

Producing Party’s designation. 

7. ACCESS TO AND USE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL

7.1 Basic Principles. A Receiving Party may use Protected Material that is 

disclosed or produced by another Party or by a non-party in connection with this case 

only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle this litigation. Such Protected 

Material maybe disclosed only to the categories of persons and under the conditions 

described in this Order. When the litigation has been terminated, a Receiving Party 

must comply with the provisions of section 11, below (FINAL DISPOSITION). 

Protected Material must be stored and maintained by a Receiving Party at a 

location and in a secure manner that ensures that access is limited to the persons 

authorized under this Order. 

7.2 Disclosure of “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items. Unless 

otherwise ordered by the court or permitted in writing by the Designating Party, a 

Receiving Party may disclose any information or item designated CONFIDENTIAL 

only to: 

(a) the Receiving Party’s Outside Counsel of record in this action, as well 

as employees of said Counsel to whom it is reasonably necessary to disclose the 

Case 3:07-cv-01404-MHP Document 20 Filed 02/27/08 Page 8 of 18
9 CASE NO. CV 07-01414 MHP 

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

5522823_1

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 

information for this litigation and who have signed the “Agreement to Be Bound by 

Protective Order” that is attached hereto as Exhibit A; 

(b) the officers, directors, and employees (including House Counsel) of the 

Receiving Party to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation and 

who have signed the “Agreement to Be Bound by Protective Order” (Exhibit A); 

(c) experts (as defined in this Order) of the Receiving Party to whom 

disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation and who have signed the 

“Agreement to Be Bound by Protective Order” (Exhibit A); 

(d) the Court and its personnel; 

(e) court reporters, their staffs, and professional vendors to whom 

disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation and who have signed the 

“Agreement to Be Bound by Protective Order” (Exhibit A); 

(f) during their depositions, witnesses in the action to whom disclosure is 

reasonably necessary and who have signed the “Agreement to Be Bound by 

Protective Order” (Exhibit A). Pages of transcribed deposition testimony or exhibits 

to depositions that reveal Protected Material must be separately bound by the court 

reporter and may not be disclosed to anyone except as permitted under this 

Stipulated Protective Order; 

(g) the author of the document or the original source of the information. 

7.3 Disclosure of “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES 

ONLY” Information or Items. Unless otherwise ordered by the court or permitted in 

writing by the Designating Party, a Receiving Party may disclose any information or 

item designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” only 

to: 

(a) the Receiving Party’s Outside Counsel of record in this action, as well 

as employees of said Counsel to whom it is reasonably necessary to disclose the 

information for this litigation and who have signed the “Agreement to Be Bound by 

Protective Order” that is attached hereto as Exhibit A; 

Case 3:07-cv-01404-MHP Document 20 Filed 02/27/08 Page 9 of 18
10 CASE NO. CV 07-01414 MHP 

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

5522823_1

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 

(b) Experts (as defined in this Order) (1) to whom disclosure is reasonably 

necessary for this litigation, (2) who have signed the “Agreement to Be Bound by 

Protective Order” (Exhibit A), and (3) as to whom the procedures set forth in 

paragraph 7.4, below, have been followed; 

(c) the Court and its personnel; 

(d) court reporters, their staffs, and professional vendors to whom 

disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation and who have signed the 

“Agreement to Be Bound by Protective Order” (Exhibit A); and 

(e) the author of the document or the original source of the information. 

7.4 Procedures for Approving Disclosure of “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or Items to “Experts”: 

(a) Unless otherwise ordered by the court or agreed in writing by the 

Designating Party, a Party that seeks to disclose to an “Expert” (as defined in this 

Order) any information or item that has been designated “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” first must make a written 

request to the Designating Party that (1) identifies the specific HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL information that the Receiving Party seeks permission to disclose 

to the Expert, (2) sets forth the full name of the Expert and the city and state of his or 

her primary residence, (3) attaches a copy of the Expert’s current resume, (4) 

identifies the Expert’s current employer(s), (5) identifies each person or entity from 

whom the Expert has received compensation for work in his or her areas of expertise 

or to whom the expert has provided professional services at any time during the 

preceding five years, and (6) identifies (by name and number of the case, filing date, 

and location of court) any litigation in connection with which the Expert has 

provided any professional services during the preceding five years. 

(b) A Party that makes a request and provides the information specified in 

the preceding paragraph may disclose the subject Protected Material to the identified 

Expert unless, within seven court days of delivering the request, the Party receives a 

Case 3:07-cv-01404-MHP Document 20 Filed 02/27/08 Page 10 of 18
11 CASE NO. CV 07-01414 MHP 

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

5522823_1

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 

written objection from the Designating Party. Any such objection must set forth in 

detail the grounds on which it is based. 

(c) A Party that receives a timely written objection must meet and confer 

with the Designating Party (through direct voice to voice dialogue) to try to resolve 

the matter by agreement. If no agreement is reached, the Party seeking to make the 

disclosure to the Expert may file a motion as provided in Civil Local Rule 7 (and in 

compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5, if applicable) seeking permission from the 

court to do so. Any such motion must describe the circumstances with specificity, 

set forth in detail the reasons for which the disclosure to the Expert is reasonably 

necessary, assess the risk of harm that the disclosure would entail and suggest any 

additional means that might be used to reduce that risk. In addition, any such motion 

must be accompanied by a competent declaration in which the movant describes the 

parties’ efforts to resolve the matter by agreement (i.e., the extent and the content of 

the meet and confer discussions) and sets forth the reasons advanced by the 

Designating Party for its refusal to approve the disclosure. 

In any such proceedings the Party opposing disclosure to the Expert shall bear 

the burden of proving that the risk of harm that the disclosure would entail (under the 

safeguards proposed) outweighs the Receiving Party’s need to disclose the Protected 

Material to its Expert. 

8. PROTECTED MATERIAL SUBPOENAED OR ORDERED PRODUCED IN 

OTHER LITIGATION. 

If a Receiving Party is served with a subpoena or an order issued in other 

litigation that would compel disclosure of any information or items designated in this 

action as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY,” the Receiving Party must so notify the Designating Party, in writing 

(by fax, if possible) immediately and in no event more than three court days after 

receiving the subpoena or order. Such notification must include a copy of the 

subpoena or court order. 

Case 3:07-cv-01404-MHP Document 20 Filed 02/27/08 Page 11 of 18
12 CASE NO. CV 07-01414 MHP 

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

5522823_1

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 Receiving Party also must immediately inform in writing the Party who 

caused the subpoena or order to issue in the other litigation that some or all the 

material covered by the subpoena or order is the subject of this Protective Order. In 

addition, the Receiving Party must deliver a copy of this Stipulated Protective Order 

promptly to the Party in the other action that caused the subpoena or order to issue. 

The purpose of imposing these duties is to alert the interested parties to the 

existence of this Protective Order and to afford the Designating Party in this case an 

opportunity to try to protect its confidentiality interests in the court from which the 

subpoena or order issued. The Designating Party shall bear the burdens and the 

expenses of seeking protection in that court of its confidential material – and nothing 

in these provisions should be construed as authorizing or encouraging a Receiving 

Party in this action to disobey a lawful directive from another court. 

9. UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL

If a Receiving Party learns that, by inadvertence or otherwise, it has disclosed 

Protected Material to any person or in any circumstance not authorized under this 

Stipulated Protective Order, the Receiving Party must immediately (a) notify in 

writing the Designating Party of the unauthorized disclosures, (b) use its best efforts 

to retrieve all copies of the Protected Material, (c) inform the person or persons too 

whom unauthorized disclosures were made of all the terms of this Order, and (d) 

request such person or persons to execute the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to 

Be Bound” that is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

10. FILING PROTECTED MATERIAL 

Without written permission from the Designating Party or a court order 

secured after appropriate notice to all interested persons, a Party may not file in the 

public record in this action any Protected Material. A Party that seeks to file under 

seal any Protected Material must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. 

11. FINAL DISPOSITION

Unless otherwise ordered or agreed in writing by the Producing Party, within 

Case 3:07-cv-01404-MHP Document 20 Filed 02/27/08 Page 12 of 18
13 CASE NO. CV 07-01414 MHP 

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

5522823_1

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 

sixty days after the final termination of this action, each Receiving Party must return 

all Protected Material to the Producing Party. As used in this subdivision, “all 

Protected Material” includes all copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries or any 

other form of reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material. With 

permission in writing from the Designating Party, the Receiving Party may destroy 

some or all of the Protected Material instead of returning it. Whether the Protected 

Material is returned or destroyed, the Receiving Party must submit a written 

certification to the Producing Party (and, if not the same person or entity, to the 

Designating Party) by the sixty day deadline that identifies (by category, where 

appropriate) all the Protected Material that was returned or destroyed and that 

affirms that the Receiving Party has not retained any copies, abstracts, compilations, 

summaries or other forms of reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material 

Notwithstanding this provision, Counsel are entitled to retain an archival copy of all 

pleadings, motion papers, transcripts, legal memoranda, correspondence or attorney 

work product, even if such materials contain Protected Material Any such archival 

copies that contain or constitute Protected Material remain subject to this Protective 

Order as set forth in Section 4 (DURATION), above. 

12. MISCELLANEOUS

12.1 Right to Further Relief. Nothing in this Order abridges the right of any 

person to seek its modification by the Court in the future. 

12.2 Right to Assert Other Objections. By stipulating to the entry of this 

Protective Order no Party waives any right it otherwise would have to object to 

disclosing or producing any information or item on any ground not addressed in this 

Stipulated Protective Order. Similarly, no Party waives any right to object on any 

ground to use in evidence of any of the material covered by this Protective Order. 

Case 3:07-cv-01404-MHP Document 20 Filed 02/27/08 Page 13 of 18
14 CASE NO. CV 07-01414 MHP 

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

5522823_1

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 

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD. 

DATED: February 21, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL T. WELCH 

By: /s/Michael T. Welch 

Michael T. Welch 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

KATHERINE ARAGON 

DATED: February 21, 2008 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, 

SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 

By: /s/Marcus A. McDaniel 

Marcus A. McDaniel 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. 

Case 3:07-cv-01404-MHP Document 20 Filed 02/27/08 Page 14 of 18
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 

PROOF OF SERVICE BY UNITED STATES MAIL 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California; I am over the age 

of 18 years and not a party to this action. My business address is 633 West Fifth Street, 

53rd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071. 

On February 26, 2008, I served a true copy of the following document(s) described 

as: 

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

on the persons below as follows: 

Michael T. Welch, Esq. 

Law Offices of Michael T. Welch 

Four Embarcadero Center 

39th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Eric DeWalt, Esq. 

Lafayette & Kumagai LLP 

100 Spear Street 

Suite 600 

San Francisco, California 94105 

I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at 

the addresses as indicated above and: 

 deposited the sealed envelope or package with the United States Postal Service, with 

the postage fully prepaid.* 

placed the envelope or package for collection and mailing, following our ordinary 

business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’s practice for collecting 

and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is 

placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business 

with the United State Postal Service, in a sealed envelope or package with postage 

fully prepaid. 

 I am employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package 

was placed in the mail at Los Angeles, California. 

(Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the Bar of this 

Court at whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty 

of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the above 

is true and correct. 

Executed on February 26, 2008, at Los Angeles, California. 

Elizabeth Mendoza /s/Elizabeth Mendoza 

Type Name Signature 

* (SIGNATURE MUST BE OF PERSON DEPOSITING ENVELOPE IN MAIL SLOT, BOX OR BAG)

Case 3:07-cv-01404-MHP Document 20 Filed 02/27/08 Page 15 of 18
1

EXHIBIT “A” TO THE STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

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 

5517857_1

EXHIBIT “A”

ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND

I, ______________________, declare under penalty of perjury that I have read in its 

entirety and understand the Stipulated Protective Order that was signed by the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of California on in the case of 

Aragon v. ADT Security Services, Inc., Case No. CV 07-01414 MHP. I agree to comply 

with and to be bound by all the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order and I understand 

and acknowledge that failure to so comply could expose me to sanctions and punishment in 

the nature of contempt. I solemnly promise that I will not disclose in any manner any 

information or item that is subject to this Stipulated Protective Order to any person or entity 

except in strict compliance with the provisions of this Order. 

 I further agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this Stipulated 

Protective Order, even if such enforcement proceedings occur after termination of this 

action. 

 I hereby appoint ________________of as my 

California agent for service of process in connection with this action or any proceedings 

related to enforcement of this Stipulated Protective Order. 

Date: 

City and State where sworn and signed: 

Printed Name: 

Signature: 

Case 3:07-cv-01404-MHP Document 20 Filed 02/27/08 Page 16 of 18
CASE NO. CV 07-01404 MHP 

5517878_1 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 

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 

LAFAYETTE & KUMAGAI LLP 

GARY T. LAFAYETTE (State Bar No. 088666) 

glafayette@lkclaw.com

SUSAN T. KUMAGAI (State Bar No. 127667) 

skumagai@lkclaw.com

ERIC R. DEWALT (state Bar No. 138560) 

edewalt@lkclaw.com

100 Spear Street, Suite 600 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Telephone: (415) 357-4600 

Facsimile: (415) 357-4605 

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, 

SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 

MARCUS A. MCDANIEL, State Bar No. 151357 

marcus.mcdaniel@ogletreedeakins.com

ANDREA G. DUCKWORTH, State Bar No. 249518 

andrea.duckworth@ogletreedeakins.com

633 West Fifth Street, 53rd Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90071 

Telephone: (213) 239-9800 

Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KATHERINE ARAGON, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC., a 

corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case No. CV 07-01404 MHP 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE 

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE 

ORDER 

Trial Date: April 29, 2008 

Case 3:07-cv-01404-MHP Document 20 Filed 02/27/08 Page 17 of 18
2 CASE NO. CV 07-01404 MHP 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 

5517878.1 (OGLETREE) 

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 

5517878_1

IT IS SO ORDERED that documents and other information disclosed during this 

action and designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” 

shall be treated as stated in this Stipulation for Protective Order. 

DATED: 

Honorable Marilyn H. Patel 

 Judge, United States District Court 

SUBJECT TO ATTACHED MODIFICATION ORDER. 2/27/2008

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:07-cv-01404-MHP Document 20 Filed 02/27/08 Page 18 of 18