May et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 33

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson re: 31 32 requests for protective order and ORDER of referral re: discovery. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2017)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

FIDELIA DEL CARMEN MAY CAN,
et al.,

Case No. 16-cv-05771-TEH

Plaintiffs,
6

ORDER RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER
AND ORDER OF REFERRAL

v.
7
8
9

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,
Defendants.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The Court has reviewed the parties’ competing proposals for a protective order.

12

Plaintiffs propose that the Court adopt its model protective order for standard litigation.

13

Defendants propose three substantive changes to the model order: (1) broadening the scope

14

of what is included within the definition of “confidential” information; (2) removing

15

language that exempts from the protective order material that is or subsequently becomes

16

part of the public domain; and (3) shifting the burden of justifying a confidential

17

designation from the designating party to the challenging party.

18

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the model protective order for standard

19

litigation is appropriate. Defendants make verbatim many of the same arguments they

20

raised in Woods, a case pending in this district before Judge William Orrick. Compare

21

ECF No. 31, at 3-5, with Gwendolyn Woods v. City and County of San Francisco, Case

22

No. 15-cv-05666 WHO, ECF No. 35, at 2-4. Judge Orrick rejected those arguments,

23

concluding that:

24
25
26
27
28

It may well be that the official information privilege will apply
to many of the documents that defendants will produce in this
case. But I agree with plaintiff that this district’s model
protective order for standard litigation is the more appropriate
protective order here; it affords adequate protection to the
confidentiality concerns of each party and will by no means
prevent defendants from maintaining the confidentiality of
information related to the criminal investigation where

2

appropriate. Notwithstanding the use of defendants’ proposed
order in some other cases in this district, there is no good cause
to shift the burden on establishing the propriety of the
designation of confidential documents.

3

Woods, ECF No. 36, at 1-2. This Court agrees. Defendants have also failed to justify why

4

documents in the public domain should be subject to a protective order. Nor have

5

Defendants even attempted to argue that the model protective order adopted in Woods has

6

been insufficient to safeguard their interests. Accordingly, the Court will sign and file a

7

version of the proposed protective order submitted by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs shall email an

8

electronic version of their proposed order to [e-mail], and the Court will

9

enter it as an order after removing reference to any stipulation by the parties.

1

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Disputes regarding confidentiality designations and all other discovery disputes are
hereby REFERRED to a magistrate judge.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated: 04/04/17

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2