Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02075/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02075-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

1

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 05-02075 JF (PVT)

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S INTERIM ORDER RE

PARTIES’ PROPOSED FORM OF PROTECTIVE ORDER

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 3/23/06**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DAVID JAMES HOLSINGER,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, L.L.P., et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-02075 JF (PVT)

ORDER1 OVERRULING

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S INTERIM

ORDER RE PARTIES’ PROPOSED

FORM OF PROTECTIVE ORDER

[re: docket No. 31]

On March 3, 2006, Plaintiff David James Holsinger and Defendants filed a stipulated

protective order. On March 13, 2006, Magistrate Judge Trumbull issued an “Interim Order Re

Parties’ Proposed Form of Protective Order,” ordering the parties to submit a revised protective

order:

The court is requiring this revision because the wording proposed by the parties is

problematic in two respects. First, it creates an unnecessary risk of inadvertent

waiver of confidentiality if a party’s attorney through inattention fails to bring a

motion within 14 days after receiving an objection to a confidentiality designation. 

Second, it creates a risk of putting the burden of unnecessary motion work on both

Case 5:05-cv-02075-JF Document 35 Filed 03/23/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Case No. C 05-02075 JF (PVT)

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S INTERIM ORDER RE

PARTIES’ PROPOSED FORM OF PROTECTIVE ORDER

(JFLC1)

this court and the designating party in situations where the objecting party might

not otherwise initiate motion work. The better approach is to place the burden of

filing a motion on the party objecting to the designation. This will ensure that

motions are only brought when the objecting party fees the burden of motion work

is warranted.

March 13, 2006 order, p. 2. On March 20, 2006, Plaintiff filed an objection to Magistrate Judge

Trumbull’s interim order. Where, as here, the magistrate judge’s ruling addresses a

non-dispositive matter, the district judge will modify or set aside “any portion of the magistrate

judge’s order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Trumbull’s interim order on the grounds that public

policy disfavors protective orders and that the modified protective order would encourage overdesignation of confidential documents. Because both of these arguments are, on their face,

policy arguments, neither can establish that the interim order is clearly erroneous or contrary to

law. 

Plaintiff also objects to the interim order on the ground that the party seeking a protective

order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) bears the burden of establishing good

cause. Plaintiff argues that “it is the designating party’s burden (at all times) to bring a motion

that establishes ‘good cause’ for protection of its documents.” However, Plaintiff cites no

authority for this proposition. Moreover, as Magistrate Judge Trumbull notes in her March 21,

2006 “Order Re Entry of Protective Order,” it is appropriate for the challenging party to bear the

burden of filing a motion when the confidential designation of a particular document pursuant to

a blanket protective order is at issue. See, e.g., Gillard v. Boulder Valley School Dist. Re.-2, 196

F.R.D. 382, 386 (D.Colo. 2000) (“After receiving documents, the opposing party has the right to

contest those documents which it believes not to be confidential. At this stage, the party seeking

the protection shoulders the burden of proof in justifying retaining the confidentiality

designation. Thus, the burden of proving confidentiality never shifts from the party asserting that

claim—only the burden of raising that issue.”).

Next, Plaintiff objects to the interim order on the ground that the modified protective

Case 5:05-cv-02075-JF Document 35 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Case No. C 05-02075 JF (PVT)

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S INTERIM ORDER RE

PARTIES’ PROPOSED FORM OF PROTECTIVE ORDER

(JFLC1)

order is different than that to which the parties stipulated. As Magistrate Judge Trumbull has

already clarified in her March 21, 2006 order, the revised protective order does not include any

reference to a stipulation and “[w]hile parties may suggest terms for a protective order, the

ultimate decision as to the appropriate terms for such an order resides within the discretion of the

court.” Order of March 21, 2006, p. 2 (citing Ares-Serono, Inc. v. Organon Intern. B.V., 153

F.R.D. 4, 6 (D.Mass., 1993)).

Accordingly, the objection to Magistrate Judge Trumbull’s order will be overruled.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 23, 2006

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02075-JF Document 35 Filed 03/23/06 Page 3 of 4
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

Case No. C 05-02075 JF (PVT)

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S INTERIM ORDER RE

PARTIES’ PROPOSED FORM OF PROTECTIVE ORDER

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Tomio B. Narita tnarita@wsnlaw.com

Frederick William Schwinn cand_cmecf@sjconsumerlaw.com,

fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com

Jeffrey A. Topor jtopor@wsnlaw.com 

Case 5:05-cv-02075-JF Document 35 Filed 03/23/06 Page 4 of 4