Ahmadi v. United Continental Holdings, Inc.
ORDER GRANTING PROTECTIVE ORDER as Modified by the Court, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/14/2014. (Hall, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS,
INC., doing business as UNITED AIRLINE,
1: 14-CV-00264 - LJO - JLT
ORDER GRANTING PROTECTIVE ORDER AS
MODIFIED BY THE COURT
Before the Court is the stipulation of counsel related to confidential documents. (Doc. 28) The
Court will modify the stipulated protective order to comply with its Local Rules and procedures as
Paragraph 6.3 is modified as follows:
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) 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 comply with the scheduling order (Doc. 22 at 4) regarding discovery
motions. If this fails to resolve the dispute, within 21 days or as otherwise ordered
by the Court, the Designating Party SHALL file a motion which complies with
Local Rule 251 and, in particular, subsection (c). 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) or as otherwise ordered by the Court, 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.
Paragraph 12.3 is modified as follows:
Filing Protected Material. Without written permission from the Designating Party or
a court order secured after appropriate notice to all interested persons, a Party may
not file in the public record in this action any Protected Material. A Party that seeks
to file under seal any Protected Material must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5
Local Rule 141. Protected Material may only be filed under seal pursuant to a court
order authorizing the sealing of the specific Protected Material at issue. Pursuant to
Civil Local Rule 79-5 Local Rule 141, a sealing order will issue only upon a request
establishing that the Protected Material at issue is privileged, protectable as a trade
secret, or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. If a Receiving Party's
request to file Protected Material under seal pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5( d) is
denied by the court, then the Receiving Party may file the information in the public
record pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5( e) unless otherwise instructed by the
The Court GRANTS the stipulated protective order AS MODIFIED (Doc. 28).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 14, 2014
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?