Brown v. FPI Management, Inc. et al

Filing 49

ORDER re 48 Joint Discovery Letter Brief filed by Ashanna Brown, Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc., FPI Management, Inc., Kennedy-Wilson, Inc.. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 11/26/12. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2012)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6
7

ASHANNA BROWN,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13

Case No.: C-11-05414-YGR
ORDER REGARDING JOINT DISCOVERY
LETTER BRIEF (DKT. NO. 48)

v.
FPI MANAGEMENT, INC. and KENNEDYWILSON, INC.,
Defendants.
The Court has received the parties’ Joint Discovery Letter Brief concerning the entry of a

14

protective order in this action. (Dkt. No. 48.) Defendant FPI Management, Inc. (“FPI”) requests that

15

the protective order must include an “Attorneys Eyes Only” provision to protect the privacy interests

16

of current and former employees who are not parties to this action. FPI identifies employees’

17

financial information and employment history, including salary, promotion history, and disciplinary

18

records, as being sought by Plaintiff in discovery. Plaintiff objects to an “Attorneys Eyes Only”

19

provision and requests that the Northern District’s model Protective Order for Standard Litigation be

20

entered in this action. Defendant Kennedy Wilson, Inc. (“Kennedy-Wilson”) will sign either version

21

of a protective order.

22

Having reviewed the Discovery Letter Brief and the positions of the parties, the Court DENIES

23

FPI’s request for an “Attorneys Eyes Only” provision in the protective order. However, the Court

24

agrees that Plaintiff’s requests implicate the privacy interests of third-party employees. FPI and

25

Kennedy-Wilson may take reasonable measures to protect the names and identities of employees

26

whose information is produced to Plaintiff, as was done in Exhibit C (attached to the Discovery Letter

27

Brief). If Plaintiff requires additional information to identify specific employees, counsel may utilize

28

the discovery dispute process set forth in the Court’s Standing Order. Counsel is advised, however,

1

that the Court’s discovery dispute process contemplates the filing of a joint letter brief that concisely

2

summarizes all remaining issues after the parties have met and conferred in person. Parties are not

3

permitted to file multiple joint letters to circumvent the page limits.

4

The parties shall meet and confer to finalize a protective order in accordance with this Order

5

and shall submit it to the Court for approval. The proposed protective order shall reflect the Court’s

6

discovery dispute process as set forth in its Standing Order.

7

This Order terminates Dkt. No. 48.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated: November 26, 2012

_________________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2