Percelle v. Pearson et al
Filing
75
ORDER requiring joint statement re: 74 MOTION Administrative Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 3/13/14. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
STEVE DALE PERCELLE,
Plaintiff,
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
v.
S. PEARSON, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 12-cv-05343-TEH
ORDER REQUIRING JOINT
STATEMENT RE: PARTIES’
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
13
14
On March 7, 2014, Defendants filed an administrative motion for entry of a
15
stipulated protective order to apply in this case. As the stipulated protective order departed
16
from the Northern District of California’s model protective order, the Court’s standing
17
order required the parties to submit a declaration identifying and explaining those
18
departures. The parties, however, failed to comply with that requirement. Nevertheless, in
19
their administrative motion, Defendants stated generally that they had departed from the
20
model order “because discovery in the case might involve production of documents that
21
implicate the safety and security of California prisons, prison staff, inmates, and the
22
general public.” Docket No. 74.
23
The Court has reviewed the stipulated order, and finds that in addition to other
24
reasonable departures it omits language contained in the model protective order at section
25
5.1 prohibiting mass, indiscriminate, and routinized confidentiality designations, and also
26
omits language contained in the model order at section 6.3, setting out the process,
27
schedule, and relevant burdens for judicial intervention and resolution of any challenges to
28
confidentiality designations. The Court is doubtful that these two modifications are
1
justified by Defendants’ explanation regarding safety and security concerns. The Court
2
therefore requires that on or before March 19, 2014, the parties provide a joint statement
3
explaining the reasons for these two particular modifications. Failure to submit the
4
statement will result in the denial of Defendants’ administrative motion.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
9
Dated: 3/13/14
_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?