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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDON SIMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:17-cv-00133-KAW 

ORDER REGARDING 1/17/18 JOINT 

LETTER RE: STIPULATED 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 47

On January 17, 2018, the parties filed a joint letter concerning the terms of their proposed 

stipulated protective order. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 47.) In sum, Defendants seek to alter the terms 

“to take[] into account the unique nature of the privileges that protect a criminal investigative file, 

which the Model Protective Order does not.” (Joint Letter at 3.) 

As an initial matter, the Court is not persuaded by Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s 

counsel’s prior stipulation to these modifications in other cases has any bearing on the instant 

case. (Joint Letter at 4.) Currently, Defendants are proposing three modifications.

First, Defendants seek to modify the provision that places the burden on the Designating 

Party when challenging a confidential designation instead of placing the burden on the 

Challenging Party, as provided in the Model Order. (Joint Letter at 3.) This modification is not 

permitted, and the parties shall adopt the terms in the Model Protective Order.

Second, Defendants seek to modify Model Order ¶ 2.3 by including a “Highly 

Confidential—Attorneys Eyes Only” designation, which they claim is appropriate since Plaintiff is 

incarcerated and Plaintiff’s counsel seeks “wide-ranging discovery related to multiple officers in 

support of his Monell claim.” (Joint Letter at 4.) Plaintiff opposes this modification on the 

grounds that “these types of records are routinely produced and thereafter protected by way of the 
2

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

Model Protective Order, without incident.” (Joint Letter at 2.) That Plaintiff is incarcerated and 

may be permitted to review confidential materials does not mean that they are not sufficiently

protected by the Model Order. Accordingly, the parties shall utilize the language in the Model 

Order, and Defendants’ proposed modification is denied.

Third, Defendants’ Proposed Order omits the second paragraph of ¶ 5.1 of the Model 

Order, which admonishes the parties that “mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are 

prohibited” and warns that designations shown to be clearly unjustified or made for an improper 

purpose will expose a party to sanctions. (See Joint Letter at 2.) Defendants do not address why 

this language should not omitted. Thus, the Court will not permit the proposed modification. 

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants’ proposed modifications are 

unwarranted, and the parties shall file a stipulated protective order, identical to the Model 

Protective Order, within 7 days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2018

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge