Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04529/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04529-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

WAI-2857999v3 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. C-03-04529-RMW 

JEFFREY D. WOHL (Cal. State Bar No. 96838) 

KERRI N. HARPER (Cal. State Bar No. 217377) 

JENNIFER A. BLACKSTONE (Cal. State Bar No. 226951) 

PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 

55 Second Street, 24th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Telephone: (415) 856-7000 

Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 

Email: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com 

 kerriharper@paulhastings.com 

 jenniferblackstone@paulhastings.com 

GLEN D. NAGER (D.C. Bar No. 385405) (admitted pro hac vice) 

ALISON B. MARSHALL (D.C. Bar No. 426168) (admitted pro hac vice) 

JONES DAY 

51 Louisiana Ave., N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

Telephone: (202) 879-3939 

Facsimile: (202) 626-1700 

Email: gdnager@jonesday.com 

 abmarshall@jonesday.com 

(Additional counsel listed on next page) 

Attorneys for Defendant 

International Business Machines Corporation 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIAM SYVERSON, PATRICK BOONE, 

LEE DESHLER, ROBERT FLOWERS, 

BARRY GERARD, TINA GLEISNER, 

THOMAS GOMEZ, EDWIN “DANA” 

GOODLOE, ROLF MARSH, DANIEL 

MOCZAN, JAMES PAYNE, AND 

ANTONIO RIVERA, individually and on 

behalf of other similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES 

CORPORATION, 

Defendant. 

No. C-03-04529-RMW 

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 5:03-cv-04529-RMW Document 119 Filed 03/12/08 Page 1 of 16
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

WAI-2857999v3 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. C-03-04529-RMW 

Additional Counsel for Defendant 

International Business Machines Corporation: 

AARON L. AGENBROAD (Cal. State Bar No. 242613) 

JONES DAY 

555 California Street, 26th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 626-3939 

Facsimile: (415) 875-5700 

Email: alagenbroad@jonesday.com 

TRACI L. LOVITT (N.Y. Bar No. 2872638) (admitted pro hac vice) 

JONES DAY 

222 East 41st Street 

New York, New York 10017 

Telephone: (212) 326-3939 

Facsimile: (212) 755-7306 

Email: tlovitt@jonesday.com 

Case 5:03-cv-04529-RMW Document 119 Filed 03/12/08 Page 2 of 16
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

WAI-2857999v3 2

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. C-03-04529-RMW

Plaintiffs William Syverson, Patrick Boone, Lee Deshler, Robert Flowers, Barry Gerard, Tina 

Gleisner, Thomas Gomez, Edwin “Dana” Goodloe, Rolf Marsh, Daniel Moczan, James Payne, and 

Antonio Rivera and defendant International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) (each referred to 

as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties,” acting through their respective counsel of record, hereby 

stipulate as follows: 

1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS

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 the officers, directors, employees, 

consultants, retained experts, and outside counsel (and their support staff) of any party. “Party” includes 

the Named Plaintiffs identified in the Third Amended Complaint, but does not include putative class or 

collective action members, including persons who file consents to sue, unless and until the Court 

approves the joinder of any such persons pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 216(b). 

2.2 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. 

Case 5:03-cv-04529-RMW Document 119 Filed 03/12/08 Page 3 of 16
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

WAI-2857999v3 3

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. C-03-04529-RMW

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.R.Civ.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 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 current employee of a Party and who, at the time of retention, is not 

anticipated to become an employee of a Party. This definition includes a professional jury or trial 

consultant retained in connection with this litigation. 

Case 5:03-cv-04529-RMW Document 119 Filed 03/12/08 Page 4 of 16
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

WAI-2857999v3 4

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. C-03-04529-RMW

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. 

2.14 Competitor: a person who presently or at any time since January 1, 2001 (1) competes or 

has competed with IBM or any of its affiliated companies in the provision of products or services or 

(2) is employed or has been employed with an entity that competes with IBM or any of its affiliated 

companies in the provision of products or services. A competitor does not include a person or employee 

of an entity whose primary business purpose is to provide statistical, economic, or job content analysis. 

3. SCOPE

The protections conferred by this Stipulated Protective 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. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL

5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection. Each Party or nonparty 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. 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 

Case 5:03-cv-04529-RMW Document 119 Filed 03/12/08 Page 5 of 16
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

WAI-2857999v3 5

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. C-03-04529-RMW

asserted, that Party or non-party must promptly notify all other parties that it is withdrawing the 

mistaken designation. 

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. 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 treated as “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. 

(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 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “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 

Case 5:03-cv-04529-RMW Document 119 Filed 03/12/08 Page 6 of 16
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

WAI-2857999v3 6

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. C-03-04529-RMW

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.” 

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 that Party’s 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 

Case 5:03-cv-04529-RMW Document 119 Filed 03/12/08 Page 7 of 16
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

WAI-2857999v3 7

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. C-03-04529-RMW

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 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 may be 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: 

Case 5:03-cv-04529-RMW Document 119 Filed 03/12/08 Page 8 of 16
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

WAI-2857999v3 8

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. C-03-04529-RMW

(a) the Receiving Party’s 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; 

(b) the Receiving Party, including the officers, directors, and employees (including 

House Counsel) of the Receiving Party to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation; 

(c) a person who is a putative class or collective action member, including but not 

limited to a person who has filed a consent to sue form, who has signed the “Agreement to Be Bound by 

Protective Order” (Exhibit A), and to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation; 

(d) 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); 

(e) the Court and its personnel; 

(f) 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); 

(g) during and/or in preparation for 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; and 

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

Notwithstanding the above paragraph, a Receiving Party may disclose to any putative 

class or collective action member the personnel file and payroll information that pertains to any such 

individual, regardless of whether the information or item is designated CONFIDENTIAL. 

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: 

Case 5:03-cv-04529-RMW Document 119 Filed 03/12/08 Page 9 of 16
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

WAI-2857999v3 9

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. C-03-04529-RMW

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

said Outside Counsel to whom it is reasonably necessary to disclose the information for this litigation; 

(b) the Receiving Party’s House Counsel to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary 

for this litigation; 

(c) the Receiving Party’s employees to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for 

the purposes of this litigation; 

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

for this litigation and (2) who have signed the “Agreement to Be Bound by Protective Order” (Exhibit 

A). With regard to Experts (as defined in this Order) who are also Competitors of a Party, disclosure 

shall be made only to those individuals as to whom the procedures set forth in paragraph 7.4, below, 

have been followed; 

(e) the Court and its personnel; 

(f) 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 

(g) 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” Who Are Competitors of a Party.

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

Party, a Receiving Party that seeks to disclose to an Expert who is a Competitor of the Designating Party 

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), and 

(5) explains why the Expert satisfies the definition of a Competitor. 

Case 5:03-cv-04529-RMW Document 119 Filed 03/12/08 Page 10 of 16
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

WAI-2857999v3 10

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. C-03-04529-RMW

(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 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. 

7.5 In any such proceeding, the Party opposing disclosure to the Competitor 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.

 (a) 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. 

(b) 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 

Case 5:03-cv-04529-RMW Document 119 Filed 03/12/08 Page 11 of 16
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

WAI-2857999v3 11

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. C-03-04529-RMW

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. 

(c) 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 to 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 

Except as provided in this paragraph, 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. If the Court denies the request to seal, then the Receiving 

Party must wait two business days. If the Designating Party does not appeal or file a motion for 

reconsideration or extraordinary relief within two business days of the denial of the request to seal, the 

Receiving Party may re-submit the Protected Material in the public record pursuant to Civil Local Rule 

79-5(e). If the Designating Party appeals or moves for reconsideration or extraordinary relief within two 

business days, the Receiving Party may, in opposing such motion, seek leave to file the Protected 

Case 5:03-cv-04529-RMW Document 119 Filed 03/12/08 Page 12 of 16
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

WAI-2857999v3 12

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. C-03-04529-RMW

Material at issue in the public record in the event that the motion is denied, and may file such 

information in the public record if the request to do so is granted. Protected Material subject to a request 

to file under seal will, upon becoming appropriate for filing in the public record pursuant to the terms of 

this paragraph and upon actual filing, be deemed filed when initially presented to the Court with the 

request to file under seal. 

11. FINAL DISPOSITION

(a) Unless otherwise ordered or agreed in writing by the Producing Party, within sixty days 

after the final termination of this action, each Receiving Party must destroy or return to the Producing 

Party all Protected Material. 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. 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, other than as 

authorized below in the subsequent paragraph, retained any copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries 

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

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions in the immediately preceding paragraph, Counsel are 

entitled (i) to retain an archival copy of all documents and things produced in discovery, pleadings, 

motion papers, transcripts, legal memoranda or correspondence, even if such materials contain Protected 

Material, and (ii) to retain or destroy, as it chooses, any work product, even if it contains Protected 

Material. Any such retained material that contains or constitutes Protected Material remains 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 

Case 5:03-cv-04529-RMW Document 119 Filed 03/12/08 Page 13 of 16
WA1-2857999v3

13

01/25/200B 21:35 2077748268 MCTEAGUEHIGBEE PAGE 02/ 02

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.

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

JEFFREY NEIL YOUNG

PATRICK McTEAGUE

McTEAGUE, HIGBEE, CASE, COHEN, WHITNEY

& TOKER, PA.

TERESA DEMCHAK

MORRIS I. BALLER

GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHA.K, BALLER, BORGEN &

DARDARIAN

CHRISTOPHER PLATEN

WYLIE, MCBRIDE, PLATTEN & RENNER

By: Jeff, Neil ung

Attorneys for Plainti s Will' Syverson, Patrick Boone, Lee Deshler, Robert Flowers, Barry Gerard,

Tina Gleisner, Thomas Gomez, Edwin "Dana"

Goodloe, Rolf Marsh, Daniel Moczan, James Payne and Antonio Rivera

,A)

GLEN D. NAGER

ALISON B. MARSHALL

TRACI L. LOVITT

AARON L. AGENBROAD

JONES DAY

JEFFREY D. WOHL

KERRI N. HARPER

JENNIFER A. BLACKSTONE

PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP

By: . hoag Alison 13, Marshall

Attorneys for Defendant International Business Machines Corporation

Dated: January-IC,-2008.

Dated: January 25-

 2008.

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal., No. C-03.04529-RMW

Case 5:03-cv-04529-RMW Document 119 Filed 03/12/08 Page 14 of 16
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

WAI-2857999v3 

EXHIBIT A

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND

I, _____________________________ [print or type full name], of _________________ 

[print or type full address], declare under penalty of perjury that I have read in its entirety and 

understand the Stipulated Protective Order that was issued by the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of California on [date] in the case of Syverson et al. v. International 

Business Machines Corp., Case No. C-03004529-RMW. 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 __________________________ [print or type full name] of 

_______________________________________ [print or type full address and telephone 

number] 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: ______________________________ 

 [printed name] 

Signature: __________________________________ 

 [signature] 

Case 5:03-cv-04529-RMW Document 119 Filed 03/12/08 Page 15 of 16
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

WAI-2857999v3 

ORDER

On the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS SO 

ORDERED: 

Dated: January ___, 2008. 

 

 

 ________________________________ 

 Ronald M. Whyte 

 United States District Judge 

Magistrate

March

11

Case 5:03-cv-04529-RMW Document 119 Filed 03/12/08 Page 16 of 16