Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00574/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00574-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

U

nite

d

State

s

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN TENNISON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et

al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-0574 CW (EMC)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

(Docket No. 515)

On October 12, 2006, third party Caramad Conley filed a motion for permissive intervention

and to modify the protective order in this case. Defendant the City and County of San Francisco

filed a statement of nonopposition to the motion but asked the Court to bar Keker & Van Nest from

representing Mr. Conley because it had violated the protective order in this case by using material

produced in this case to evaluate Mr. Conley’s case. The Court therefore deemed the City’s

nonopposition as a motion for sanctions and thereafter set a briefing schedule. The hearing on the

motion for sanctions took place on December 6, 2006. Having considered the parties’ briefs and

accompanying submissions, as well as the oral argument of counsel at the hearing, the Court hereby

DENIES the City’s motion for sanctions.

The City’s argument that Keker violated the protective order in this case is not without some

merit. The protective order does specify that documents covered by the protective order are to be

used for the purposes of this litigation only, and there is no real dispute that Keker used the

confidential Tennison documents to evaluate Mr. Conley’s case. See Opp’n at 2. 

Case 4:04-cv-00574-CW Document 528 Filed 12/08/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

State

s

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

2

The Court does not agree with Keker’s argument that, under Foltz v. State Farm Mutual

Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003), “a [collateral] litigant must review and

analyze the documents he seeks to use.” Opp’n at 1. Foltz does not require such a specific showing

in order to obtain relief from a protective order. Under Foltz, the court which issued the protective

order makes “only a rough estimate of relevance” in determining whether to grant relief therefrom,

with “the ultimate discoverability of specific materials covered by the protective order [being]

resolved by the collateral court[].” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133. “[R]elevance hinges ‘on the degree of

overlap in facts, parties, and issues between the suit covered by the protective order and the collateral

proceedings.’” Id. at 1132. If attorneys in collateral litigation believe that confidential information

in matters covered by a protective order is relevant to their case, those attorneys should move for

relief and demonstrate general relevance based on the degree of overlap in facts, parties, and issues

between the two lawsuits. Review of particular documents under seal is generally not necessary.

Keker argues that it cannot be held to have breached the protective order when there was no

way for it to avoid a breach -- by happenstance it represents both Mr. Tennison and Mr. Conley. The

Court acknowledges that this fact complicates matters. However, even though Keker represents both

Mr. Tennison and Mr. Conley, there are different Keker attorneys working on each case. Foltz

requires that Mr. Conley’s attorneys move this Court for relief from the protective order before

obtaining information from the Tennison attorneys.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 4:04-cv-00574-CW Document 528 Filed 12/08/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

State

s

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

Nonetheless, even assuming that there was a breach of the protective order, the draconian

sanction sought by the City -- i.e., disqualification of Keker in the Conley case -- is not warranted. 

There is nothing to indicate that any breach of the protective order was done in bad faith. More

important, any purported breach has not prejudiced the City. Accordingly, the Court denies the

City’s motion for sanctions.

This order disposes of Docket No. 515.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2006

 

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-00574-CW Document 528 Filed 12/08/06 Page 3 of 3