Southern California Regional Rail Authority v. Hyundai Rotem Company

Filing 71

PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott re Stipulation for Protective Order 69 . [See Order for details.] (san)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY, a 12 joint powers authority, Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 15 HYUNDAI ROTEM COMPANY, a South Korean corporation; RAUL V. 16 BRAVO + ASSOCIATES, INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 17 through 10, Case No. 16-cv-08042-JAK (JEMx) Hon. John A. Kronstadt [PROPOSED] ORDER PURSUANT TO FED. R. EVID. 502(d) DISCOVERY MATTER [Fed R. Evid. 502(d)] Hon. John E. McDermott United States Magistrate Judge Defendants. 18 Action Filed: Sept. 30, 2016 Trial Date: none set 19 20 21 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1093053.1/81067.05006 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PURSUANT TO FED. R. EVID. 502(d) 1 The Court has reviewed the Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Pursuant to 2 Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) (“Stipulation”) submitted jointly by Plaintiff and Counter3 Defendant Southern California Regional Rail Authority (“Metrolink”), Defendant 4 and Counter-Claimant Hyundai Rotem Company (“Hyundai”) and Defendant Raul 5 V. Bravo + Associates, Inc. (“Raul Bravo”) (individually, each a “Party” and 6 collectively, the “Parties”)) and, for good cause, the Court approves the Stipulation 7 and enters the following Order: 8 1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(d), a Party’s inadvertent disclosure or 9 production of any documents or information in this proceeding shall not, for the 10 purposes of this proceeding or any other proceeding in any other court, constitute a 11 waiver by that Party of any privilege or protection applicable to those documents, 12 including the attorney-client privilege, work product protection and any other 13 privilege or protection recognized by law. The provisions of Fed. R. Evid. 502(b) 14 are inapplicable to the production of documents or information under this 15 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order. Specifically there shall be no waiver if a Party 16 discloses privileged or protected information inadvertently or otherwise, regardless 17 of whether the Party took reasonable steps to prevent the disclosure or to rectify the 18 error. 19 2. Any Party receiving any such inadvertently produced documents or 20 information shall, within five (5) calendar days of receipt of a written request (a) 21 identifying the document(s) or information that was inadvertently produced, and (b) 22 specifying the basis for the right to withhold such document(s) or information with 23 the requisite specificity justifying the asserted basis for privilege or protection, 24 return them to the producing Party or provide written notice to the producing Party 25 that they have been destroyed. Further, the receiving Party shall delete any version 26 of the documents or information it maintains and make no use of the information 27 contained therein, regardless of whether the receiving Party agrees with the claim of 28 privilege and/or work product protection. 1093053.1/81067.05006 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER PURSUANT TO FED. R. EVID. 502(d) 1 3. Nothing in this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order shall prevent a 2 receiving Party from challenging the privilege or protection asserted by the 3 producing Party by making an appropriate application to the Court. Pursuant to Fed. 4 R. Civ. P. 26, the producing Party bears the burden of establishing the privilege or 5 protection of all such challenged documents. 6 4. Disclosure of information or documents by the receiving Party before 7 the producing Party designates the information as protected shall not be deemed a 8 violation of this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED: 11 12 DATED: October 25, 2017 13 Hon. John E. McDermott United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1093053.1/81067.05006 3 [PROPOSED] ORDER PURSUANT TO FED. R. EVID. 502(d)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?