Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05434/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05434-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN EARL CAMPBELL

Plaintiff,

 v.

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER

CORPORATION dba AMTRAK, JOE DEELY,

DOES 1 -15 inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C05-5434 MJJ (EDL)

ORDER FOLLOWING DISCOVERY

HEARING AND PROTECTIVE ORDER

On April 4, 2007, the Court held a telephonic discovery hearing with the parties regarding

disputes arising during the deposition by Plaintiff of Steve Shelton. Pamela Price appeared by

telephone on behalf of Plaintiff; Kathleen Maylin appeared by telephone on behalf of Defendants. 

For the reasons stated at the hearing, Defendants’ privacy objection to Plaintiff’s questions to Mr.

Shelton regarding personnel decisions as to other employees is overruled, subject to the Court’s

ruling that access to personal identifying information (primarily names) of non-party employees is

restricted to attorneys and the parties for the purposes of this litigation. The parties are ordered not

to disclose any such identifying information to non-parties except if necessary in depositions of

Defendants’ employees, in which case the deponents must be informed of the protective order and

told by Defendants to comply. 

The parties shall meet and confer on the terms of a more detailed protective order to

Case 4:05-cv-05434-CW Document 62 Filed 04/04/07 Page 1 of 2
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

1 To the extent that Plaintiff’s requests encompass apparently irrelevant personal

information in personnel files, such as medical or detailed financial information, Plaintiff should narrow

his request.

2

supersede this one regarding the confidentiality of sensitive personal information about non-party

employees disclosed during discovery.1

 The parties shall further meet and confer promptly on the

related issues raised in Plaintiff’s three pending discovery motions in light of the guidance given by

the Court during the discovery hearing and in this Order, seek a further protective order as

necessary, and inform the Court as soon as possible and no later than April 10, 2007, if any of those

issues are moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:05-cv-05434-CW Document 62 Filed 04/04/07 Page 2 of 2