Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00996/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00996-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alfred Conhagen, Inc. of California
Plaintiff
Christine Baker
Defendant
Kamala Harris
Defendant
Diane Ravnik
Defendant
Matt Rodriguez
Defendant
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, AFL-CIO
Intervenor Defendant
Unico Mechanical Corp.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNICO MECHANICAL CORP, a 

California Corporation, and ALFRED 

CONHAGEN, INC. OF CALIFORNIA, a 

California Corporation, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

KAMALA HARRIS, in her official 

capacity of Attorney General for the State 

of California; CHRISTINE BAKER, in her 

official capacity as the Director of the 

California Department of Industrial 

Relations; DIANE RAVNIK, in her official 

capacity as the Chief of the California 

Division of Apprenticeship Standards; and 

MATT RODRIGUEZ, in his official 

capacity as California Secretary for 

Environmental Protection, 

Defendants. 

STATE BUILDING AND 

CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL 

OF CALIFORNIA, AFL-CIO, 

 Intervenor-Defendant

No. 2:15-cv-0996 JAM AC (TEMP) 

ORDER 

 On December 2, 2015, this matter came before the undersigned for hearing of intervenordefendant’s motion to modify a protective order. Attorney Jonathan Barker appeared 

telephonically on behalf of the plaintiffs and attorneys Scott Kronland and Zoe Palitz appeared in 

Case 2:15-cv-00996-JAM-DB Document 30 Filed 12/03/15 Page 1 of 3
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

person on behalf of the intervenor-defendant.1 

 Upon consideration of the arguments on file and at the hearing, and for the reasons set 

forth on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that intervenor-defendant’s 

October 6, 2015 motion to modify (Dkt. No. 21) is DENIED. 

 It is FURTHER ORDERED as follows: 

1. In the event of a dispute regarding the designation of any discovery material as 

confidential, pursuant to paragraph 8 of the protective order filed on August 28, 2015, 

(Dkt. No. 15), the parties shall meet and confer in compliance with the procedures 

outlined in the undersigned’s “Standard Information,” which includes the instructions 

regarding “Discovery Disputes.” See 

www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/united-statesmagistrate-judge-allison-claire-ac.

2

 

2. If, after meeting and conferring, a dispute remains, the party challenging a 

confidentiality designation shall file a notice of motion that (a) specifically identifies 

the material at issue, in conformity with paragraph 8 of the protective order; (b) briefly 

sets forth the nature of the challenge; (3) summarizes the moving party’s effort to 

resolve the dispute informally; and (4) notices the motion for hearing before the 

undersigned on no less than 28 days’ notice. 

3. The provisions of Local Rule 251(c), regarding joint statements, shall not apply to 

such a dispute. Instead, the designating party shall file a statement making a showing 

of good cause for the confidentiality designation no later than 14 days prior to the date 

of the hearing. A courtesy copy, with any declarations, exhibits and other attachments 

tabbed, shall be delivered to the Clerk of Court on the day of filing. 

//// 

//// 

 

1

 No appearance was made by, or on behalf of, the State defendants and those defendants did not 

oppose the intervenor-defendant’s motion to modify. 

2

 The parties are directed to review the undersigned’s “Standard Information,” and comply with 

all provisions set forth therein. 

Case 2:15-cv-00996-JAM-DB Document 30 Filed 12/03/15 Page 2 of 3
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

4. The party challenging the designation shall file a reply no later than 7 days prior to the 

date of the hearing. A courtesy copy shall be filed if the document exceeds 20 pages 

or any attachments exceed 10 pages. 

DATED: December 2, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-00996-JAM-DB Document 30 Filed 12/03/15 Page 3 of 3