Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03826/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03826-23/pdf.json

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

---

1

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case No. CV 13-03826-EMC

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

ROBERT JON HENDRICKS, State Bar No. 179751

STEPHEN L. TAEUSCH, State Bar No. 247708

CAITLIN V. MAY, State Bar No. 293141

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

One Market Street, Spear Street Tower

San Francisco, California 94105-1126

Tel: 415.442.1000

Fax: 415.442.1001

rhendricks@morganlewis.com

staeusch@morganlewis.com

cmay@morganlewis.com

Attorneys for Defendant

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN, pro hac vice

(sliss@llrlaw.com)

LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000

Boston, MA 02116

Telephone: (617) 994-5800

Facsimile: (617) 994-5801

MATTHEW D. CARLSON (SBN 273242)

(mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com)

CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES

100 Pine Street, Suite 1250

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 817-1470

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DOUGLAS O’CONNOR, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS O’CONNOR, THOMAS

COLOPY, DAVID KHAN, MATTHEW

MANAHAN, WILSON ROLLE, JR., and

WILLIAM ANDERSON, individually and

on behalf of all others similarly situated;

Plaintiffs,

vs.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. CV 13-03826-EMC

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Complaint Filed: August 16, 2013

Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 181 Filed 10/21/14 Page 1 of 9
2

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case No. CV 13-03826-EMC

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of

confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public

disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted.

Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated

Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on

all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure

and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment

under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge that this Stipulated

Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local

Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied

when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal.

1. The Protective Order shall govern all materials deemed to be “Confidential

Information.” A Party may designate as “Confidential Information” any documents or

information produced in response to informal or formal discovery requests, subpoenas and/or

other exchanges of documents/information which, in good faith, such Party deems confidential,

including without limitation, any documents or information:

(a) Referring or related to confidential and proprietary human resources,

business or pricing information and/or financial records and information of Defendant;

(b) Referring or related to any current, former or prospective business partner

or third-party vendor of Defendant;

(c) Referring or related to any other confidential or trade secret information of

Defendant; and

(d) Any portions of depositions (including audio or video) where Confidential

Information is disclosed or used as exhibits.

Nothing in this Protective Order shall be deemed to require the production of information

that a party believes to be objectionable on other grounds, nor shall anything in this Protective

Order be deemed to allow for non-production of confidential information that is otherwise

discoverable.

Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 181 Filed 10/21/14 Page 2 of 9
3

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case No. CV 13-03826-EMC

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

2. In the case of documents and the information contained therein, designation of

Confidential Information produced pursuant to this Order shall be made by placing the following

legend on the face of the document or collection of documents: “CONFIDENTIAL –

PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER.” Upon such designation, all parties

shall treat the identified information as confidential under this agreement until and unless it is

otherwise agreed by all parties or ordered by the Court. In the event a party neglects to identify

any disclosed information as confidential, it may do so after disclosure by sending notice to all

parties that clearly delineates the confidential information and describes the reason for the initial

failure to designate.

3. Confidential Information shall be held in confidence by each qualified recipient to

whom it is disclosed, shall be used only for purposes of this action, shall not be used for any

business purpose, and shall be disclosed only to qualified recipients for purposes that are

specifically and directly related to the reasonable conduct of this litigation.

4. Qualified recipients shall include only the following:

(a) In-house counsel and law firms for each Party and the secretarial, clerical

and paralegal staff of each, if/as needed to perform their job duties;

(b) Deposition notaries;

(c) Persons other than legal counsel who have been retained or specially

employed by a Party as an expert witness or consultant for purposes of this lawsuit or to perform

investigative work or fact research, provided that the disclosing counsel identify to opposing

counsel such expert witness or consultant, and provide to opposing counsel that individual’s full

curriculum vitae, at least one week before the disclosure for the sole purpose of affording the

opposing party an opportunity to object to the disclosure if necessary. However, the opposing

party shall not be permitted to use the disclosure of any such expert witness or consultant for any

other purpose in the litigation. The opposing party shall have one week to notify the disclosing

counsel of an objection to the disclosure. If any objections are raised, no confidential materials

shall be shown to the expert witness or consultant until after all objections have been resolved by

the Court;

Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 181 Filed 10/21/14 Page 3 of 9
4

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case No. CV 13-03826-EMC

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

(d) Deponents during the course of their depositions or potential witnesses of

this case;

(e) A mediator selected by mutual agreement of the Parties; and

(f) The Parties as defined above through their employees who are engaged

directly in this litigation on a need to know basis.

5. Persons to whom Confidential Information is shown shall be informed of the terms

of this Order and advised that its breach may be punished or sanctioned as contempt of the Court.

Deponents may be shown Confidential materials during their deposition but shall not be permitted

to keep copies of said Confidential materials nor any portion of the deposition transcript

reflecting the Confidential Information. Portions of deposition testimony deemed confidential by

any party may be so designated at the deposition, and any such testimony shall be segregated in

the deposition transcript and identified as “confidential” by the stenographer assigned to the

deposition.

6. Challenging Confidentiality Designations

(a) Timing of Challenges. Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a

designation of confidentiality at any time. Unless a prompt challenge to a designating party’s

confidentiality designation is necessary to avoid foreseeable, substantial unfairness, unnecessary

economic burdens, or a significant disruption or delay of the litigation, a party does not waive its

right to challenge a confidentiality designation by electing not to mount a challenge promptly

after the original designation is disclosed.

(b) Meet and Confer. The party challenging a confidentiality designation shall

initiate the dispute resolution process by providing written notice of each designation it is

challenging and describing the basis for each challenge. The parties shall attempt to resolve each

challenge in good faith and must begin the process by conferring directly (in voice to voice

dialogue; other forms of communication are not sufficient) within 14 days of the date of service

of notice. In conferring, the challenging party must explain the basis for its belief that the

confidentiality designation was not proper and must give the designating party an opportunity to

review the designated material, to reconsider the circumstances, and, if no change in designation

Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 181 Filed 10/21/14 Page 4 of 9
5

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case No. CV 13-03826-EMC

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

is offered, to explain the basis for the chosen designation.

(c) Judicial Intervention. If the parties cannot resolve a challenge without

court intervention, the designating party shall file and serve a motion to retain confidentiality

under Civil Local Rule 7 (and in compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5, if applicable) 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. Each 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. Failure by the designating party to

make such a motion including the required declaration within 21 days (or 14 days, if applicable)

shall automatically waive the confidentiality designation for each challenged designation. In

addition, the challenging party may file a motion challenging 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. 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 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 motion 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.

7. No copies of Confidential Information shall be made except as required for the

conduct of this litigation and by or on behalf of attorneys of record in this action. Any person

making copies of such information shall maintain all copies within their possession or the

possession of those entitled to access to such information under this Order. Copies of

confidential documents that are attached to pleadings or motions filed with the court may be

retained in counsel’s file. Any other copies of confidential documents shall be destroyed when no

Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 181 Filed 10/21/14 Page 5 of 9
6

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case No. CV 13-03826-EMC

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

longer required for purposes of this litigation.

8. All information and/or documents produced in this action that are Confidential

shall be used only for purposes of this litigation and not for any other purpose.

9. In the event that a Party wishes to use any Confidential Information in any papers

filed in Court in this litigation, the Party shall file a motion requesting that the Court maintain the

documents containing Confidential Information under seal pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5. In

the event the Party does not believe the documents should be filed under seal, it shall meet and

confer with regard to which documents, if any, should be filed under seal. Should the Parties not

agree upon which documents should be placed under seal, the Party seeking the maintenance of

such documents under seal shall file a motion requesting that the Court maintain the documents

under seal. The Parties acknowledge that whether Confidential Information submitted to the

Court is maintained under seal is subject to the Court’s ultimate decision on any motion to place

and/or accept confidential documents under seal. The parties shall follow the procedure set forth

in Civil Local Rule 79-5 regarding filing documents under seal in civil cases.

10. The termination of this action shall not relieve the Parties and persons obligated

hereunder from their responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of information designated

confidential pursuant to this Order.

11. Upon termination of this action by entry of a final judgment (inclusive of any

appeals or petitions for review), the Parties may request the return or destruction of all previously

furnished Confidential Information, including any copies thereof, and each person or Party to

whom such Confidential Information has been furnished or produced shall be obligated to comply

with such request within thirty (30) days, with the exception of copies of Confidential

Information that were filed with the Court as part of this action, which the Parties’ counsel shall

be permitted to retain. Any Confidential Information that is not requested shall be destroyed,

subject to the provisions of paragraph 8 herein.

12. Nothing in this Protective Order shall be construed as an admission as to the

relevance, authenticity, foundation or admissibility of any document, material, transcript, or other

information.

Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 181 Filed 10/21/14 Page 6 of 9
7

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case No. CV 13-03826-EMC

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

13. Nothing in the Protective Order shall be deemed to preclude any Party from

moving to modify or dissolve this Order.

14. This Protective Order, until it is entered by the Court, and even if it is never

entered by the Court, shall be deemed to be an enforceable agreement between the Parties, except

that either Party may apply to the Court to challenge a confidentiality designation.

Dated: October 16, 2014 LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

By: /s/ Shannon Liss-Riordan_________

Shannon Liss-Riordan

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: October 16, 2014 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

By: __/s/ Stephen L. Taeusch______

Stephen L. Taeusch

Attorneys for Defendant

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ________________________ _____________________________________

Hon. Edward M. Chen

United States District Judge

10/21/14

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 181 Filed 10/21/14 Page 7 of 9
8

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case No. CV 13-03826-EMC

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

EXHIBIT A

Acknowledgement and Agreement to Be Bound by Protective Order:

I, ____________________, acknowledge that I have received a copy of the Stipulated

Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order (Order) in the lawsuit Douglas O’Connor, et al.,

v. Uber Technologies, Inc., pending in United States District Court, Case No. 13-03826-EMC.

Having read and understood its terms, I agree to be bound by the Order and consent to the

jurisdiction of said Court for any proceeding to enforce the terms of the Order.

I further agree that, within thirty (30) days after my responsibilities relating to this case

end, I will destroy all copies of any confidential documents that were provided to me in this case.

Name of individual:

Present occupation/job description:

Name of Company or Firm:

Address:

Dated:

Signature

Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 181 Filed 10/21/14 Page 8 of 9
9

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case No. CV 13-03826-EMC

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

ECF ATTESTATION

I, Stephen L. Taeusch, am the ECF User whose ID and Password are being used to file

this STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. In compliance with General Order 45 X.B, I hereby

attest that Shannon Liss-Riordan has concurred in this filing.

Dated: October 16, 2014 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

By /s/ Stephen L. Taeusch

Stephen L. Taeusch

Attorneys for Defendant

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 181 Filed 10/21/14 Page 9 of 9