Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00497/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00497-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

C-06-0497 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 1 of 4

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Richard Smith, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Ford Motor Company, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 06-0497 MMC (JL)

Order adopting Plaintiffs’

interpretation of terms of Protective

Order

(Docket # 79 & 80)

Introduction

All discovery in this case has been referred by the district court (Hon. Maxine M.

Chesney) as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72. The motion of

Plaintiff to enforce its interpretation of the terms of the parties’ stipulated protective order

(Docket # 80) came on for hearing April 18, 2007. Jeffrey Fazio and Dina Micheletti

(FAZIO MICHELETTI) appeared for Plaintiffs. Christopher D. Catalano (O'MELVENY &

MEYERS LLP) appeared for Defendant. The Court considered the moving and opposing

pleadings, the oral argument and the record in this case and hereby orders that Plaintiff’s

motion for an interpretation of the protective order (Docket #80) is granted. 

The Court adopts Plaintiffs’ interpretation of Section 3 of the Proposed Protective

Order. This keeps designated documents confidential for 28 days after the parties initiate

the meet-and-confer process, which gives the parties time to meet-and-confer on the

Case 3:06-cv-00497-MMC Document 96 Filed 05/11/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

C-06-0497 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 2 of 4

documents at issue and enough time to write and file a motion for a ruling on the

confidentiality issues. Defendant’s interpretation of Section 3 would require an

unreasonable amount of time, and its motion is denied (Docket #79). 

Background

Plaintiffs claim that the ignition lock cylinder in the 2000-2006 Ford Focus fails at an

inordinate rate, as do the replacement parts. The parties are engaged in discovery. They

agreed to a Stipulated Protective Order after negotiating its terms from a model order

created by Plaintiffs. At issue here is the interpretation of one sentence in Section 3 of the

Stipulated Protective Order:

“The material shall continue to be treated as Confidential Material until the expiration

of twenty-eight (28) business days from the date of the meet and confer or, in the

event the designating party applies to this Court for a ruling on the matter within that

28-day time period, until the Court rules that it is not Confidential Material.”

Issue

Ford claims that the current language of the Protective Order means it does not

need not apply to the court for a ruling on whether documents are entitled to confidential

treatment until 28 days after the meet-and-confer process has concluded. Then it would

have 28 more days to file such a motion.

Plaintiffs disagree; they believe that a motion for ruling on the confidentiality

designation should be filed within 28 days of the beginning of the meet-and-confer process. 

Argument

Plaintiffs’ interpretation is in line with a model Protective Order they drafted —which

is on the Santa Clara County Superior Court’s Complex Litigation Division website, see

www.sccomplex.org— and with all drafts except the draft the parties stipulated to. 

Plaintiffs contend the change was made by Defendant without red-lining or comment

while the parties were negotiating a separate issue in the Protective Order. The parties

had agreed to change the Protective “Confidential” period from 14 days to 28 days. But

Ford also changed the phrase “from the date on which the designation was initially

Case 3:06-cv-00497-MMC Document 96 Filed 05/11/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

C-06-0497 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 3 of 4

challenged” to “from the date of the meet-and-confer.” Plaintiffs contend they did not notice

the change because they believed that another part of the Protective Order was changed

as the parties had agreed to such changes in that other section. During negotiation,

Defendant had “red-lined” changes, but it did not red-line the change to Section 3. 

Plaintiffs unwittingly agreed to the changed Protective Order with the new, arguably

ambiguous, change in language — even though they did not specifically note the change. 

Plaintiffs claim that they had not agreed to this change and in fact specifically rejected a

similar proposed change during earlier negotiations. 

Analysis

Ultimately, the burden to support a designation of confidentiality rests with the

designating party, here, the Defendant. Contratto v. Ethicon, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 304, 306

(N.D. Cal. 2005).

To meet-and-confer over each of the documents would require weeks of time

(Defendant estimates that during one 8-hour session the parties could discuss 300

documents, thus requiring as many as 100 sessions to discuss all 30,000 documents at

issue). 

The point of the limit on motions to challenge a designation of confidentiality is to

allow for timely conferences to encourage the parties to resolve their differences without

unnecessary use of the Court’s time. If the meet-and-confer process has concluded when

such a motion is brought, then the purpose of the 28 day limit is served. If the time were

interpreted as beginning to run when the meet-and-confer process is initiated then it

logically allocates time for the parties to meet-and-confer before seeking a ruling from the

Court. But extending the time for motions until 28 days after the meet-and-confer process

concludes does not make sense and would unreasonably delay the process. 

Conclusion

Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Protective Order is adopted. Once the meet-andconfer process has been initiated (i.e., the first meeting held or the first communication

sent) the designated material remains confidential for 28 days before the designating party

Case 3:06-cv-00497-MMC Document 96 Filed 05/11/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

C-06-0497 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 4 of 4

must move for an order deeming the documents confidential. This will match the initial

drafts and move the process along more quickly. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 11, 2007

__________________________________

 JAMES LARSON

 Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00497-MMC Document 96 Filed 05/11/07 Page 4 of 4