Woods v. San Francisco

Filing 36

ORDER re 35 Letter re Protective Order. Plaintiff's request for the districts model protective order for standard litigation is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall submit an electronic version of the protective order attached as Exhibit B to the joint letter and I will enter it. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 05/03/2016. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GWENDOLYN WOODS,

Case No. 15-cv-05666-WHO

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER ON JOINT LETTER RE
PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 35

Defendants.

12

The parties dispute the appropriate protective order for this case. See Dkt. No. 35.

13

Plaintiff proposes this district’s model protective order for standard litigation. Defendants propose

14

a slightly modified version. According to the parties, the key differences between their proposals

15

are that (1) defendants’ proposed order would afford blanket “confidential” designation to all

16

information “related to the criminal investigation incidental to the event forming the basis of this

17

lawsuit,” Dkt. No. 35-1 ¶ 2; (2) defendants’ proposed order would place the burden on plaintiff to

18

establish, by motion filed with the Court, that defendants had improperly designated information

19

as confidential; and (3) defendants’ proposed order would require that any such motion be filed

20

under seal. In addition, each party accuses the other of using evidence in this case to generate

21

sympathetic media and public attention.

22

There is a strong presumption of access to judicial records. See Kamakana v. City & Cty.

23

of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). It may well be that the official information

24

privilege will apply to many of the documents that defendants will produce in this case. But I

25

agree with plaintiff that this district’s model protective order for standard litigation is the more

26

appropriate protective order here; it affords adequate protection to the confidentiality concerns of

27

each party and will by no means prevent defendants from maintaining the confidentiality of

28

information related to the criminal investigation where appropriate. Notwithstanding the use of

1

defendants’ proposed order in some other cases in this district, there is no good cause to shift the

2

burden on establishing the propriety of the designation of confidential documents.

3

Plaintiff’s request for the district’s model protective order for standard litigation is

4

GRANTED. Plaintiff shall submit an electronic version of the protective order attached as Exhibit

5

B to the joint letter and I will enter it. The parties are further advised to comply in all respects

6

with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and my Standing Order On Administrative Motions To File Under

7

Seal. The parties are also reminded, as I indicated at the Case Management Conference, that this

8

case is to be tried in the courtroom, not in the press. Any material violations of the Protective

9

Order will have consequences.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dated: May 3, 2016
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2