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)

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