Northern California River Watch v. Oakland Maritime Support Services, Inc. et al

Filing 77

ORDER granting 76 STIPULATION REGARDING RULE 34 REQUEST FOR ENTRY UPON LAND FOR INSPECTION AND STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER filed by Northern California River Watch, East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, Teamsters Local 70. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 11/9/2011. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Michael R. Lozeau (State Bar No. 142893)
Richard T. Drury (State Bar No. 163559)
Douglas J. Chermak (State Bar No. 233382)
LOZEAU DRURY LLP
410 12th Street, Suite 250
Oakland, CA 94607
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone] (fax)
E-mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH,
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 70, and EAST BAY
ALLIANCE FOR A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14
15

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH,
a non-profit corporation; TEAMSTERS
LOCAL 70, a labor organization; and EAST
BAY ALLIANCE FOR SUSTAINABLE
ECONOMY, a non-profit organization,

18
19
20
21
22
23

STIPULATION REGARDING RULE 34
REQUEST FOR ENTRY UPON LAND
FOR INSPECTION AND STIPULATED
PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiffs,

16
17

Case No.: 4:10-cv-3912 CW-JSC

v.
OAKLAND MARITIME SUPPORT
SERVICES, INC., a corporation; WILLIAM
ABOUDI, an individual; and JORGE
GONZALEZ RIVERA d.b.a. CHRISTIAN
BROTHERS TRUCK SERVICES, an
individual; and REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF OAKLAND, a local public
agency;
Defendants.

24

WHEREAS, On March 23, 2011, Plaintiffs served upon Defendant OAKLAND

25

MARITIME SUPPORT SERVICES, INC. (“OMSS”) and WILLIAM ABOUDI (“Aboudi”) a

26

Request for Entry Upon Land for Inspection and Other Purposes pursuant to Rule 34 of the

27

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to enter the premises at 11 Burma

28

Road in Oakland, California (“the Facility”) to inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test,
-1STIPULATION AND STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

1

videotape, or sample soil, materials, product, or runoff that may contribute pollutants to storm

2

drains on or adjacent to the Facility.

3
4
5

NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto, in order to facilitate discovery in this case,
hereby stipulate to the following:
1.

OMSS and Aboudi will agree to Plaintiffs’ request for an inspection. Such

6

inspection shall take place during the next two weeks or soon thereafter as can be scheduled by

7

the parties. The parties, including OMSS and City of Oakland Redevelopment Agency will be

8

given split samples of any runoff taken during the inspection; and OMSS may take photographs

9

and video tape the inspections performed pursuant to this request.

10

2.

The parties agree to exchange the results of any testing performed during the

11

inspection, along with all photographs or videotapes, 30 (thirty) days prior to the submission of

12

the written reports required pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Pro. 26(a)(2) and the Court’s case

13

management order dated March 8, 2011, or any subsequent modifications of that deadline that

14

the Court should order.

15
16
17
18
19

3.

This Stipulation and Order shall not be construed as a waiver by any party of any

objections which might be raised as to the admissibility of any evidentiary material.
FURTHER, subject to the approval of this Court, the parties hereby stipulate to the
following interim protective order regarding the inspection as follows:
4.

Defendant contends that all information and material collected as a result of

20

inspection and testing at the Facility are proprietary in nature and constitute trade secrets. As a

21

result, the parties agree, subject to the limitations and procedures set forth below, that such

22

information, material, and documentation shall be maintained in confidence, shall be used only

23

in connection with this litigation, and not for any commercial or business purpose, and shall not

24

be shared with any third parties except for persons retained or specially employed for trial

25

preparation purposes as required by Rule 26.

26

5.

This stipulated interim protective order shall expire as of the date of service of the

27

written reports prepared for this litigation pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Pro. 26(a)(2) including

28

information and material collected during the site inspection. Within 14 (fourteen) days of
-2STIPULATION AND STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

1

receipt of the photographs or video obtained by plaintiff during the site inspection pursuant to

2

Paragraph 4 above, Defendants shall specify which, if any, photographs or video it believes

3

qualifies as a protected trade secret or proprietary material that should be subject to any

4

protective order and provide Defendants’ rationale that a protective order is appropriate. Within

5

14 (fourteen) days of defendant’s receipt of analytic results, photographs, or video obtained by

6

Plaintiffs during the site inspection pursuant to Paragraphs 1-3 above, Plaintiffs and Defendants

7

OMSS and Aboudi shall meet and confer to determine whether the parties agree certain

8

information should be subject to a protective order. If the parties cannot agree that some or all of

9

the information identified by defendant should be subject to a protective order, Defendants may

10

file a motion with the Court requesting a protective order. Such motion shall be filed within 7

11

(seven) days after the expiration of the meet and confer process. No information or

12

documentation identified by Defendants as trade secret or proprietary shall be disclosed until

13

such time that this court may issue a ruling on a motion for a protective order brought by

14

Defendants’, if any such motion is made.

15
16

Dated: November 9, 2011
/s/ Douglas J. Chermak
DOUGLAS J. CHERMAK
Attorney for Plaintiffs

17
18
19

Dated: November 9, 2011
/s/ Meredith E. Brown
(as authorized on 11/8/11)
MEREDITH E. BROWN
Attorney for Defendants
OAKLAND MARITIME SUPPORT
SERVICES, INC. and WILLIAM ABOUDI

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:
9
Dated: November ___, 2011
Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley
United States Magistrate Judge

28
-3STIPULATION AND STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER