Unico Mechanical Corp. et al v. Harris et al

Filing 30

ORDER denying 21 Motion for Protective Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/2/15. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 UNICO MECHANICAL CORP, a California Corporation, and ALFRED CONHAGEN, INC. OF CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation, ORDER 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 No. 2:15-cv-0996 JAM AC (TEMP) 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 On December 2, 2015, this matter came before the undersigned for hearing of intervenor- 27 defendant’s motion to modify a protective order. Attorney Jonathan Barker appeared 28 telephonically on behalf of the plaintiffs and attorneys Scott Kronland and Zoe Palitz appeared in 1 1 person on behalf of the intervenor-defendant.1 2 Upon consideration of the arguments on file and at the hearing, and for the reasons set 3 forth on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that intervenor-defendant’s 4 October 6, 2015 motion to modify (Dkt. No. 21) is DENIED. 5 It is FURTHER ORDERED as follows: 6 1. In the event of a dispute regarding the designation of any discovery material as 7 confidential, pursuant to paragraph 8 of the protective order filed on August 28, 2015, 8 (Dkt. No. 15), the parties shall meet and confer in compliance with the procedures 9 outlined in the undersigned’s “Standard Information,” which includes the instructions 10 regarding “Discovery Disputes.” See 11 www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/united-states- 12 magistrate-judge-allison-claire-ac.2 13 2. If, after meeting and conferring, a dispute remains, the party challenging a 14 confidentiality designation shall file a notice of motion that (a) specifically identifies 15 the material at issue, in conformity with paragraph 8 of the protective order; (b) briefly 16 sets forth the nature of the challenge; (3) summarizes the moving party’s effort to 17 resolve the dispute informally; and (4) notices the motion for hearing before the 18 undersigned on no less than 28 days’ notice. 19 3. The provisions of Local Rule 251(c), regarding joint statements, shall not apply to 20 such a dispute. Instead, the designating party shall file a statement making a showing 21 of good cause for the confidentiality designation no later than 14 days prior to the date 22 of the hearing. A courtesy copy, with any declarations, exhibits and other attachments 23 tabbed, shall be delivered to the Clerk of Court on the day of filing. 24 //// 25 //// 26 1 27 28 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. 2 1 4. The party challenging the designation shall file a reply no later than 7 days prior to the 2 date of the hearing. A courtesy copy shall be filed if the document exceeds 20 pages 3 or any attachments exceed 10 pages. 4 DATED: December 2, 2015 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

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?