Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01937/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01937-9/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.

2 Lytel also filed, on March 3, 2006, an ex parte application to permit filing supplemental

materials. The court hereby denies that application as moot, in that the supplemental materials are not

necessary to the court’s decision on Simpson’s 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 DENYING MOTION TO REMOVE

CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATION WITH

RESPECT TO SUN MICROSYSTEM’S

INVESTIGATION REPORT

On February 7, 2006, Defendant/Counter-Claimant Janet Simpson (“Simpson”) filed a

Motion to Remove the Confidentiality Designation with Respect to Sun Microsystem’s Investigation

Report.1 Counter-Defendant Sun Microsystems, Inc. (“Sun”) opposed the motion. Plaintiff/CounterDefendant Richard Lytel (“Lytel”) timely filed his declaration in opposition to the motion, but filed

his memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the motion a week late.2 Lytel neither

sought, nor received, leave of court to file his opposition brief a week late. Simpson filed a reply to

Sun’s opposition, and an objection to Lytel’s late-filed opposition brief. The court sustains

Simpson’s objection to the late-filing of Lytel’s opposition brief, and does not consider that brief in

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 169 Filed 03/08/06 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

3

In Foltz the Ninth Circuit found the third-party employees’ privacy rights could be

protected by redacting their names and other identifying information from the particular records at issue.

Here, given the few individuals involved, and the factual context of the information, redaction of names

and other specifically identifying information would not preclude identification of the employees

involved. 

4 The presumption of access to court materials does not apply to materials disclosed in

discovery which have not been attached to any dispositive motion or admitted in evidence at trial. See

Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 331 F.3d at 1134-35.

ORDER, page 2

reaching its determination herein. The court will, however, take Lytel’s timely-filed declaration into

consideration because Simpson had ample opportunity to respond to that declaration. Having

reviewed the papers submitted by the parties, the court finds it appropriate to issue this order without

oral argument. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Simpson’s motion is DENIED. Rule 26(c) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the court to protect a party from “annoyance, embarrassment,

oppression or undue burden or expense.” Courts routinely allow employers to designate employee

records “Confidential” under an appropriate protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c) to protect their

employees’ right of privacy. See, e.g., Knoll v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company, 176

F.3d 359, 365 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding employer had a valid interest in the privacy of nonparty

personnel files and that it was within the district court’s power to grant protective order that limited

access to the plaintiff’s counsel); see, also, Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 331

F.3d 1122, 1137, 1139 (9th Cir. 2002) (approving use of protective order in protecting third-party

employees’ private personnel information).3 Further, Lytel’s declaration makes a specific showing

of good cause to warrant protection under Rule 26(c), at least at this point in the proceedings. While

some embarrassment to litigants is inherent in lawsuits of this nature, and, in fact, some of

Simpson’s allegations are already a matter of public record, Lytel has shown good cause to preclude

wide dissemination of disputed, purportedly one-sided sensitive information. The Protective Order

leaves for the determination of the trial judge whether or not materials entered into evidence at trial,

or submitted in support of a dispositive motion, will be sealed.4

Dated: 3/7/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 169 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 2