Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04175/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04175-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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 court is not aware of any legal authority for a court to restrict a party’s use of

documents that do not qualify for protection under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c). The parties

are free to enter into a private agreement to restrict their use of such documents, but the court will not

order any such restriction.

2 Blanket protective orders are intended to facilitate application of the protections afforded

under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c), which does not address the standards applicable to

inadvertent production of privileged or work product information. Any inadvertent production of

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ROBERT ANTHONY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

YAHOO!, 

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-4175 RMW (PVT)

ORDER RE PARTIES’ PROPOSED

FORM OF PROTECTIVE ORDER 

On September 22, 2006, the parties filed a [Proposed] Stipulated Protective Order. Having

reviewed the form of protective order submitted by the parties, the court finds it appropriate to issue

this interim order. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than January 5, 2006, the parties shall file a revised

form of protective order that makes the following changes:

1. Revises paragraph 1 to apply only to documents designated “Confidential” or

“Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only”;1

2. Omits paragraph 13;2

Case 5:05-cv-04175-RMW Document 72 Filed 12/15/06 Page 1 of 2
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 privileged or work product information will be handled in accordance with the standards developed by

the courts for those situations. See, e.g., Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Garvey, 109 F.R.D. 323, 331-32

(N.D.Cal. 1985).

ORDER, page 2

3. Revises paragraph 15 to make it clear that the protective order does not relieve a party

served with a valid subpoena or document request in another action or proceeding

from the obligation to comply with the deadline for production set in such subpoena

or document request, and that the burden is on the designating party to file a motion

to quash or other appropriate motion, and if necessary a motion to stay the deadline

for production, before the deadline passes; and 

4. Adds the phrase “other than the court” after the phrase “Confidential Information” at

line 28 on page 8.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pending entry of the final form of protective order, the

provisions of the parties’ proposed form of protective order, as modified herein, shall govern the

handling of confidential information exchanged or disclosed during discovery in this case.

Dated: 12/15/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-04175-RMW Document 72 Filed 12/15/06 Page 2 of 2