Osmena et al v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC et al

Filing 77

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas re Confidential Protective Order; terminating 71 Discovery Letter Brief; terminating 74 Discovery Letter Brief (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2013)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

DAVID T OSMENA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

7
8
9

v.
LLOYDS TSB BANK, PLC, et al.,

Case No.:3:12-cv-02937-WHA (NJV)
ORDER RE CONFIDENTIAL
PROTECTIVE ORDER
Re: Dkt. Nos. 71 & 74

Defendants.

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. 72). See Doc. No. 74. 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. 74.
(3) The parties may challenge confidentiality designations. See, e.g., Doc. No. 71-1 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