Dugan et al v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC

Filing 90

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas re Confidential Protective Order;terminating 82 Discovery Letter Brief; terminating 85 Discovery Letter Brief (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 JOHN DUGAN, et al., Plaintiffs, 7 8 9 v. LLOYDS TSB BANK, PLC, Case No.:3:12-cv-02549-WHA (NJV) ORDER RE CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER Re: Dkt. Nos. 82 & 85 Defendant. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC (“Lloyds”) has addressed the issues this court raised in its 13 December 20, 2012 order (Doc. No. 83). See Doc. No. 85. The court orders as follows: 14 (1) The stipulated protective order may contain the two levels of confidentiality 15 16 17 18 designations urged by Lloyds. (2) The term “competitor,” which Lloyds seeks to include in the definition of “expert,” shall be limited to those competitors Lloyds identified in Exhibit A to Doc. No. 85. (3) The parties may challenge confidentiality designations. See, e.g., Doc. No. 82-1 at 8, 19 at ¶ 6. Plaintiffs may use a similar procedure to challenge the entities that Lloyds has identified as 20 competitors. The court urges the parties to meet and confer in earnest before seeking judicial 21 intervention regarding these matters. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (4) The parties shall file a revised stipulated protective order reflecting the above within seven days. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 9, 2013 ________________________ Nandor J. Vadas United States Magistrate Judge

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?