Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland et al

Filing 437

ORDER REGARDING NON-SSI PRIVILEGE LOG, MOTION TO SEAL, REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, AND CLASSIFIED SUBMISSIONS by Judge Alsup terminating 405 Discovery Letter Brief; terminating 406 Discovery Letter Brief; granting 423 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 433 Motion (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
RAHINAH IBRAHIM,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

No. C 06-00545 WHA

v.

ORDER REGARDING NON-SSI
PRIVILEGE LOG, MOTION TO
SEAL, REQUESTS FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME, AND
CLASSIFIED SUBMISSIONS

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, et al.,
Defendants.
/

16
17

This order addresses several of the parties’ recent discovery issues and requests.

18

Regarding plaintiff’s proposed non-SSI protective order, defendants object to Section 1,

19

“Purposes and Limitations,” and propose to add a substantial volume of text to “clarify the

20

bounds of the protective order.” This section in plaintiff’s proposed non-SSI protective order is

21

identical to the corresponding section in this district’s model protective order for highly-

22

confidential information. Defendants provide no authority showing that this often-used language

23

is inadequate, or that their proposed language provides any necessary clarification. Defendants’

24

objection is OVERRULED.

25

Defendants also object to section 15 of plaintiff’s proposed protective order regarding

26

return or destruction of highly confidential information, which again copies the model text.

27

Defendants propose that plaintiffs be required to return — rather than destroy — all material

28

designated “highly confidential” within 60 days of the final disposition of this action. Given the
particular circumstances of this action, the government’s objection is SUSTAINED.

1

Regarding plaintiff’s motion to seal, plaintiffs request to seal information that the Court

2

permitted defendants to serve on an attorney’s eyes only basis. Defendants filed a declaration in

3

support of the motion. This motion is GRANTED.

4

1.

The clerk shall seal the unredacted version of Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and

5

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Written Discovery and Rule 30(b)(6)

6

Depositions;

7

2.

The clerk shall seal the unredacted version of Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of

8

Items in Dispute in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to

9

Written Discovery and Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions (Part I);
3.

The clerk shall seal the unredacted version of Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Items in Dispute in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to

12

Written Discovery and Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions (Part II); and

13

4.

The clerk shall seal Exhibit FF (amended privilege log), Exhibit GG (privilege

14

log) and Exhibit HH (privilege log) to the Declaration of Christine Peek

15

submitted in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to

16

Written Discovery and to Compel Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions.

17

Defendants’ request for a 30-day extension of time to assert privileges applicable to the

18

pending discovery issues (Dkt. No. 417) is DENIED. The government has been on notice of the

19

materials plaintiffs seek in discovery for years. These instant discovery disputes have already

20

been pending more than 30 days. An additional 30-day delay is unnecessary.

21

Defendants request for a stay of briefing on plaintiff’s motion to compel, or in the

22

alternative for an additional two-week delay in which to determine whether they will assert any

23

privileges (Dkt. No. 433) is likewise DENIED.

24

The briefing schedule will, however, be modified to the following extent. Plaintiff’s

25

motion to compel (Dkt. No. 425) challenges objections by the government based on classified

26

information as well as non-classified information. The government shall separate it responsive

27

brief into two sections. The first section shall address only non-classified information and

28

privileges, and shall be filed under seal with the Court. The second section shall address only
2

1

classified information and privileges, and shall be lodged with the Court for ex parte, in camera

2

review. The March 14 deadline shall be extended until MARCH 15 AT NOON for both sections

3

(which combined should not exceed the page limitations for a single opposition brief).

4

Plaintiff’s deadline to reply to the non-classified section shall likewise be extended by one day;

5

there will be no reply submission to the classified section.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: March 13, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3