Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01682/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01682-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing 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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BARBARA WOOD, the estate of EDNA

MURILLO, and RICHARD WOOD,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VISTA MANOR NURSING CENTER

LIFE GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE,

INC., and ABIGAIL MOSS

Defendants. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-01682-JW (PVT)

CLARIFICATION OF INTERIM

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL

COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA

TO PROJECT SENTINEL; AND

DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR

SANCTIONS 

On January 30, 2007, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena

to Project Sentinel and Request for Sanctions. Project Sentinel filed their Opposition on

February 12, 2007. Defendants filed their Reply on February 26, 2007.

On February 26, 2007, the court issued an Interim Order stating that “Plaintiffs and

Defendants shall make a good faith effort to work together on a protective order and they shall

submit to the court for review and signature a form of protective order consistent with the terms

of the model stipulated protective order found on the court’s website.” (Doc. No. 29). 

Project Sentinel filed the Declaration of Christopher Brancart on March 1, 2007, which

stated, “[a]lthough the order refers to ‘plaintiffs,’ it appears clear to the parties that the Court

Case 5:06-cv-01682-JW Document 33 Filed 03/02/07 Page 1 of 2
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

 See ¶ 2.6 of Court’s Model Stipulated Protective Order on the court’s website

(http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/) in the “Forms” section.

ORDER, page 2

directed the order to Project Sentinel, a nonparty, and defendants.” (Doc. No. 32). 

Contrary to Project Sentinel’s declaration, the court intended the order to be directed

towards Plaintiffs and Defendants. It is the duty of the parties of the case to determine the

handling of confidential information exchanged in discovery, including information disclosed by

non-parties. For example, the court’s model protective order applies to any party and non-party

that produce discovery material.1

 Plaintiffs and Defendants are both warned that failure to

comply with the court’s order to make a good faith effort to agree upon a protective order will

result in sanctions. 

Dated: March 2, 2007

____________________________

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-01682-JW Document 33 Filed 03/02/07 Page 2 of 2