Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03020/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03020-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 1 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GAIL E. JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOCKHEED MARTIN SPACE SYSTEMS

COMPANY, AKA LOCKHEED MARTIN

SPACE SYSTEMS COMPANY –

MISSILES & SPACE OPERATIONS,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-3020 RMW (PVT)

ORDER RE PARTIES’ PROPOSED

FORM OF PROTECTIVE ORDER

The parties have submitted a [Proposed] Stipulation Regarding Confidentiality and Protective

Order.1 Based on the proposed form of order presented,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall revise the proposed form of order as

required by this order, and shall submit the revised form of order to the court (via electronic filing)

within 30 days of the date of this order. Pending final entry of the Protective Order, the handling of

confidential information exchanged during discovery shall be governed by the form of Protective

Order submitted by the parties as it will be revised pursuant to this order. The specific revisions to

Case 5:05-cv-03020-RMW Document 15 Filed 02/03/06 Page 1 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

2 Counsel are cautioned that over-designation of documents may result in sanctions. The

filing of documents designated “Confidential” or “Confidential -- Attorneys’ Eyes Only” puts an

additional burden on the court. Often the party filing the document is not the designating party. In that

situation the party does not have the option to unilaterally de-designate documents before submitting

them to the court, and has no choice but to request they be filed under seal. Over-designating documents

can thus result in unnecessary work for the court in sorting the documents that deserve sealing from

those that do not, as well as additional work for the parties who must then re-file public versions of the

non-confidential documents. The best way to avoid this result is for counsel to use best efforts to make

appropriate designations at the outset, and to promptly de-designate a document when it comes to

counsel’s attention that the document is over-designated. 

ORDER, page 2

be made to the form of Protective Order are as follows:

1. Paragraph 1 shall be revised to read:

“This Protective Order shall govern and be applied to protect

documents, materials, items or information that materially consist of

information that is lawfully entitled to confidential treatment under

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Confidential

Information”).

2. The revised form of order shall provide for two levels of protection,

“Confidential” and “Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only.” The revised form of order shall

note that the “Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only” level of protection is appropriate only for

the most highly sensitive information, and is warranted only if “the potential injury is

substantial and cannot be prevented through the use of any device less restrictive of a party’s

access to his lawyer.” Doe v. Dist. of Columbia, 697 F.2d 1115, 1120 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The

court expects the parties to use the “Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only” designation

sparingly. See, e.g., THK America v. NSK Co., Ltd., 157 F.R.D. 637 (N.D. Ill. 1993)

(revoking party’s right to use “attorneys’ eyes only” designation as sanction for bad faith

overuse of that designation).2

3. The sentence starting at page 2, line 14 of the current proposed form of order,

which begins “As a general guideline...” shall be omitted.

4. Lines 13-19 on page 5 of the current proposed form of order shall be revised

to read substantially as follows:

“chambers. If only portions of the document are sealable, a redacted

version of the document shall be electronically filed in public record. 

Submitted Confidential Information and the accompanying Declaration

shall be lodged with the Court but not filed with the Clerk of the Court

pending the court’s decision on the motion to file under seal. Lodged

Confidential Information shall not be available for public inspection.”

Case 5:05-cv-03020-RMW Document 15 Filed 02/03/06 Page 2 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

ORDER, page 3

5. Lines 4-8 on page 7 of the current proposed form of order shall be revised to

read substantially as follows:

“the nonparty cannot be obtained, the party shall promptly notify the

nonparty of: (a) the discovery request seeking the information; (b) the

title, court and case number of this action; and (c) the terms of this

Protective Order. Unless the nonparty files a motion for protection

within 5 court days of such notification, the party in possession of the

information shall comply with the discovery request, subject to any

appropriate objections that the party asserts on its/her own behalf.”

6. The first sentence of Paragraph 13 shall be revised to end with the word

“error” (currently at page 7, line 11). (The remainder of that sentence creates an obligation

that is not sufficiently clear and ascertainable, and thus creates a possibility of unwarranted

disputes and motion work. The burden is on the designating party to use due care in

designating its confidential documents.)

7. Paragraph 14 shall be omitted. (Nothing in Rule 26(c) authorizes a blanket

order relieving counsel of the consequences of future failures to properly guard a client’s

privileged or work product documents. Issues regarding whether an inadvertent production

of privileged or work product documents results in a waiver of privilege will be addressed on

a case-by-case basis. See, e.g., Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Garvey, 109 F.R.D. 323, 331-32

(N.D.Cal. 1985).)

8. The revised form of order shall clarify that court personnel, who already have

confidentiality obligations by virtue of their employment with the court, are not required to

sign a copy of Exhibit A to the Protective Order (see Paragraph 15 of the current proposed

form of order), nor return designated materials to counsel for the producing party (see

Paragraph 22 of the current proposed form of order). Court personnel shall follow court

procedures for disposition of designated materials. See, e.g., Civil L.R. 79-5(f) (“The

chambers copy of sealed documents will be disposed of in accordance with the assigned

Judge’s discretion. Ordinarily these copies will be recycled, not shredded, unless special

arrangements are made.”)

9. Subsection (g) of Paragraph 20 (currently at page 10, lines 17-19) shall be

omitted. It will be unnecessary once the form of order is revised to include a “Confidential –

Case 5:05-cv-03020-RMW Document 15 Filed 02/03/06 Page 3 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

ORDER, page 4

Attorneys Eyes Only” level of protection. 

10. The first line of Subsection (h) of Paragraph 20 (currently at page 10, line 20)

shall be revised to read “prevent the designating party or nonparty from agreeing in writing”

11. The following shall be added to the end of the first sentence of Paragraph 23: 

“so long as it has not been disclosed in the public record.”

12. Lines 15-22 on page 12 of the current proposed form of order shall be revised

to read substantially as follows:

“material as Confidential Information and shall notify the person or

entity seeking the Confidential Information of this Protective Order

and the designation of the material sought. Nothing herein shall be

construed as requiring the party or anyone else covered by this

Protective Order to disobey a lawful subpoena, discovery request,

court order or other legal process.”

13. Paragraph 25 shall be revised to read:

“Before designating any specific information “Confidential” or

“Confidential -- Attorneys Only,” the designating party or nonparty

and counsel shall make a good faith determination that the information

or material warrants that level of protection under Rule 26(c) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

14. Paragraph 27 shall be omitted, as it is redundant in light of Paragraph 22.

15. The last line of Paragraph 28 (currently at page 13, line 8) shall be revised to

read as follows: “Order by application to the Court on notice to all other parties to this

litigation and any nonparty who has designated information or material pursuant to the terms

of this Protective Order.”

Dated: 2/2/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-03020-RMW Document 15 Filed 02/03/06 Page 4 of 4