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