Refugio Nieto et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 14

ORDER GRANTING STANDARD PROTECTIVE ORDER and DENYING HEIGHTENED PROTECTIVE ORDER, Dkt. No. 13 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 12/2/2014. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

REFUGIO and ELVIRA NIETO,
Plaintiffs,

13
14

v.

Case No. 14-cv-03823 (NC)
ORDER GRANTING STANDARD
PROTECTIVE ORDER and
DENYING HEIGHTENED
PROTECTIVE ORDER

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

15 FRANCISCO, and others,
16

Dkt. No. 13

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

The Court has considered the protective orders proposed by the parties in this civil
rights case arising from the March 21, 2014, shooting death of Alex Nieto. Plaintiffs
propose the District’s Standard Protective Order. Dkt. No. 13-1. Defendants propose a
modified version of the District’s Protective Order for Litigation Involving Patents, Highly
Sensitive Confidential Information and/or Trade Secrets. Dkt. No. 13-2. The heightened
Protective Order includes a designation for “Attorney’s Eyes Only” information.
This is not a case about patents or trade secrets. The critical inquiry is whether the
identity of the officers involved in Nieto’s death should be disclosed only under the
“Attorney’s Eyes Only” category. At the case management conference, defendants’ counsel
asserted that the identity of the involved officers is not publicly known.

28
Case No. 14-cv-03823 (NC)
ORDER RE PROTECTIVE ORDER

1

Defendants assert that disclosing the names of the involved officers will put them in

2 serious danger. The Court takes these concerns seriously, but must balance them against
3 the need for public transparency and the mandate for the “just, speedy, and inexpensive
4 determination of every action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
5

In sum, the Court is not convinced that the complexities of a heightened protective

6 order would be in the interest of justice. The Court therefore GRANTS the protective order
7 proposed by plaintiffs and DENIES the heightened protective order proposed by
8 defendants.
9

The exchange of initial disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26

10 should proceed subject to the protections of the standard protective order.
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Date: December 2, 2014

_________________________
Nathanael M. Cousins
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 14-cv-03823 (NC)
ORDER RE PROTECTIVE ORDER

2