Davis et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 59

ORDER re: 58 Proposed protective order. Supplemental declaration due by 06/29/17. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 06/26/17. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2017)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 DORIS DAVIS, et al., Plaintiffs, 5 6 7 8 v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, et al., Case No. 16-cv-06258-TEH ORDER RE: PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER Defendants. 9 10 The parties have adequately explained all but one proposed modification from the United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Northern District’s form protective order: removing from paragraph 7.2(f) the requirement 12 that deposition witnesses sign the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound.” 13 Defendants’ declaration, ECF No. 58-2, is silent as to this paragraph. Plaintiffs’ 14 declaration states the following: 15 18 Plaintiffs revised Paragraphs 7.2(a), (b) & (f) to delete the provisions that require certain persons, including employees of Sidley Austin LLP and NVLSP, to sign Exhibit A. Sidley Austin LLP and NVLSP have numerous employees who may perform secretarial or litigation support roles from time to time, and who are already under a duty not to disclose matters on which they perform services. 19 ECF No. 58-1 at ¶ 3. While the stated rationale applies to paragraphs 7.2(a) and (b), which 20 concern counsel, officers, directors, and employees, paragraph 7.2(f) concerns deposition 21 witnesses, some of whom may not fall into those categories. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 22 ORDERED that counsel shall file, by June 29, 2017, a supplemental declaration 23 explaining the basis for modifying paragraph 7.2(f). 16 17 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 28 Dated: 06/26/17 _____________________________________ THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge

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?