Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01937/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01937-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

RICHARD LYTEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

JANET SIMPSON, 

Defendant.

___________________________________

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-1937 JF (PVT)

ORDER RE PARTIES’ PROPOSED

FORM OF PROTECTIVE ORDER

The parties have submitted a proposed Stipulated 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

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

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 122 Filed 02/06/06 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. 

3 The court notes that the form of order submitted by the parties does not have any page

numbers. In order to facilitate citations to portions of the Protective Order in the future, the pages must

be properly numbered.

ORDER, page 2

1. 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

2. Paragraph 2 of the Protective Order 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 protection under Rule 26(c) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Before designating any

specific information ‘Confidential’ or ‘Confidential -- Attorneys

Eyes 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. Absent further order of this court, or written agreement

of the designating party, documents, materials, items or information

designated ‘Confidential’ or ‘Confidential -- Attorneys Eyes Only’

shall be used by the receiving parties and their counsel solely in

connection with this litigation, and not for any other purpose, and

shall not be disclosed to anyone except as allowed herein. ”

3. Subparagraph (e) of Paragraph 4(at page 4, lines 9-10)3 shall be revised to

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 122 Filed 02/06/06 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

read: “The Court and court personnel within the course and scope of their duties;”

4. The last clause of Paragraph 9 shall be revised to read “or motion to otherwise

modify the provisions of this Order.”

5. Paragraph 10 shall be revised to refer to both parties and nonparties, and to

replace the phrase “producing party” with “designating party or nonparty.”

6. Subparagraph (g) of Paragraph 13 shall be revised to clarify that the parties

need to obtain the written agreement of a designating nonparty to any waiver of protection as

to documents designated by that nonparty.

7. Paragraph 13 shall be revised to read:

“In the event a party receives a discovery request for information that

is subject to the confidentiality rights of a nonparty, the responding

party shall attempt to obtain the consent of the nonparty to disclose the

information pursuant to this Protective Order. If the responding party

cannot promptly obtain such consent from the nonparty, the

responding party shall promptly provide the nonparty with written

notice 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. In

the event a party receives a discovery request for information that is

subject to a protective order in another action, the responding party

shall object to the request based on that other protective order. The

requesting party shall then be responsible to seek relief from the other

protective order from the designating party or nonparty in the other

action or from the court that issued the other protective order.”

8. The revised form of Protective Order shall omit either Paragraph 17 or

Paragraph 18. These two paragraphs are largely duplicative of one another. In addition,

whichever paragraph is retained shall be revised to provide that the redacted copy of the

document shall be electronically filed rather than lodged.

9. Paragraph 22 shall be revised to clarify that the Protective Order does not

supercede any court policies regarding the handling of documents filed or lodged by the

parties, and that most documents filed or submitted to the court are not returned to the

parties. 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

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 122 Filed 02/06/06 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

be recycled, not shredded, unless special arrangements are made.”)

10. Paragraph 23 shall be revised to add the following clause to the end of the first

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

11. Paragraph 24 shall be revised to read substantially as follows:

“If any party receives any legal process (including, but not limited to, a

subpoena or discovery request in another action) that seeks documents,

materials, items or information which has been designated

‘Confidential’ or ‘Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only’ pursuant to this

Protective Order, that party shall give prompt written notice (by fax

and first class mail) to the designating party or nonparty, including a

copy of the legal process. The party subject to the legal process shall

give the person or entity who served the legal process notice of this

Protective Order. The designating party or nonparty shall have the

burden of defending against any such legal process. The party subject

to the legal process shall cooperate with the designating party or

nonparty with respect to any protective actions taken. However,

nothing herein shall be construed as requiring any party, or anyone else

covered by this Protective Order, to challenge or appeal any order

requiring production of the the documents, materials, items or

information sought, or to subject herself/himself/itself to any penalties

for noncompliance with any legal process or order, or to seek relief

from this or any other court.”

12. The revised form of Protective Order shall have attached to it the Exhibit A

referred to in the order. (It is missing from the proposed form of order electronically filed by

the parties.)

Dated: 2/3/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 122 Filed 02/06/06 Page 4 of 4