Chattler -v- United States of America

Filing 110

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen denying 99 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel as moot; granting in part and denying in part 104 Defendants' Motion for Protective Order (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________/ JULIE CHATTLER, Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AS MOOT; AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (Docket Nos. 99, 104) No. C-07-4040 MMC (EMC) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

Currently pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motion to compel and Defendants' crossmotion for a protective order. A hearing on the motions was held on January 7, 2008. At the hearing, the parties indicated that they had reached agreement on Plaintiff's motion to compel (e.g., Defendant the United States agreed to provide responses that did not rely upon incorporation by reference) and the Court therefore DENIES the motion, without prejudice, as moot. As for Defendants' cross-motion for a protective order, it is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court agrees that there are valid national security concerns and therefore discovery related to lockboxes shall not be unfettered. However, limited discovery related to lockboxes shall be permitted. For example, the following kinds of discovery shall be allowed: discovery related to the extent to which Defendants can access the applications while in the lockbox facility; discovery related to how it is determined when an application may be forwarded to the passport agency; and discovery related to the extent to which Defendants can enforce the business requirements in the Statement of Work. See Reply at 5. In short, the Court finds that, under the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

present state of pleadings, discovery that might inform the ultimate question of whether receipt of a passport application by a lockbox facility constitutes "reach[ing] a Passport Agency," 22 C.F.R. § 51.66(b), shall be permitted, subject to national security concerns. This order disposes of Docket Nos. 99 and 104.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2009 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

2