Purvis v. Experian Information Solutions Inc et al

Filing 43

ORDER REGARDING PROTECTIVE ORDER DISPUTE (Dkt. Nos. 35, 41.). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 5/31/2012. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13

STEPHANIE B. PURVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. CV 11-6352-RS (JSC)
ORDER REGARDING PROTECTIVE
ORDER DISPUTE (Dkt. Nos. 35, 41.)

14
15
16

TRANS UNION, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Now pending before the Court is a dispute between Plaintiff and Defendants regarding
entry of a protective order. (Dkt. No. 41.) Defendants seek entry of the Northern District of
California form protective order. While Plaintiff opposes entry of any protective order, as a
compromise Plaintiff is willing to agree to a protective order which allows Plaintiff, following
the termination of the litigation, to retain any documents designated by Defendants as
confidential that pertain to Plaintiff. After carefully considering the parties’ positions, and
having had the benefit of oral argument on May 31, 2012, the Court finds that entry of the
Court’s form protective order is appropriate.
First, the Court finds that Defendants are likely to produce some confidential,
proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and
from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted.

1

Second, as no documents have as of yet been produced in this action, the Court cannot

2

determine whether (1) any documents which Plaintiff may seek to retain are confidential, and

3

(2) if so, whether Plaintiff should be allowed to retain the documents. In other words,

4

Plaintiff’s request is premature. Before Plaintiff becomes obligated to destroy or return any

5

documents she can move to modify the protective order and then the Court can consider her

6

request in context.

7

The Court will, however, modify the form protective order to require that upon

8

termination of the case, the obligation of the receiving party to return or destroy material

9

designated as confidential is triggered upon written notice from the designating party.

Northern District of California

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 35, 41.

11
United States District Court

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: May 31, 2012
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

2