Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06724/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06724-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SUMMIT ESTATE, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY,

ET. AL., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 4:19-CV-06724-YGR

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

STIPULATION RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 20 

The parties have submitted their stipulated proposed protective order. (Dkt. No. 20.) The 

request for entry of the proposed protected order is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to submission of a 

corrected version of the proposed order for the following reasons: 

The procedures set forth in section 6 of the proposed protective order are inconsistent with this 

Court’s Standing Order In Civil Cases, paragraph 8(c). The Court notes that the Northern District 

provides a model protective order for standard litigation on its website at: 

https://cand.uscourts.gov/model-protective-orders. The Court generally will approve a protective 

order consistent with the model, provided it substitutes language similar to the paragraph below, in 

conformity with this Court’s Standing Order: 

6.3 Judicial Intervention. If the Parties cannot resolve a challenge without 

court intervention, the parties shall follow the Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases 

regarding Discovery and Discovery Motions. The parties may file a joint letter brief 

regarding retaining confidentiality within 21 days of the initial notice of challenge or 

within 14 days of the parties agreeing that the meet and confer process will not 

resolve their dispute, whichever is earlier. Failure by a Designating Party to file such 

discovery dispute letter within the applicable 21 or 14 day period (set forth above) 

with the Court shall automatically waive the confidentiality designation for each 

challenged designation. If, after submitting a joint letter brief, the Court allows that a 

motion may be filed, any such motion must be accompanied by a competent 

declaration affirming that the movant has complied with the meet and confer 

requirements imposed in the preceding paragraph. The Court, in its discretion, may 

Case 4:19-cv-06724-YGR Document 21 Filed 03/18/20 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

elect to transfer the discovery matter to a Magistrate Judge. 

In addition, the parties may file a joint letter brief regarding a challenge to a 

confidentiality designation at any time if there is good cause for doing so, including a 

challenge to the designation of a deposition transcript or any portions thereof. If, 

after submitting a joint letter brief, the Court allows that a motion may be filed, any 

motion brought pursuant to this provision must be accompanied by a competent 

declaration affirming that the movant has complied with the meet and confer 

requirements imposed by the preceding paragraph. The Court, in its discretion, may 

elect to refer the discovery matter to a Magistrate Judge. 

The burden of persuasion in any such challenge proceeding shall be on the 

Designating Party. Frivolous challenges, and those made for an improper purpose 

(e.g., to harass or impose unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) may 

expose the Challenging Party to sanctions. Unless the Designating Party has waived 

the confidentiality designation by failing to file a letter brief to retain confidentiality 

as described above, all parties shall continue to afford the material in question the 

level of protection to which it is entitled under the Producing Party’s designation until 

the court rules on the challenge. 

The parties are moreover directed to comply with Local Rule 5-1(g) in connection with future 

submissions. Civ. L. R. 5-1(g) (“. . . proposed orders shall be submitted in an approved processing 

format such as Word, Word Perfect or ASCII text, to the specific address on the Court’s website for 

emailing proposed orders to the assigned judge”). The parties are further directed to comply with the 

Court’s Standing Order In Civil Cases, paragraph 8(c). See id. (“To the extent the parties’ proposed 

stipulated protective order varies from the model, exclusive of paragraph 6.3 set forth above, the 

parties shall submit a redline comparison with the model Stipulated Protective Order for Standard 

Litigation, along with their electronic form of proposed order, to ygrpo@cand.uscourts.gov.”). 

 This Order terminates Docket Number 20. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 18, 2020 _______________________________________

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:19-cv-06724-YGR Document 21 Filed 03/18/20 Page 2 of 2