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)

Download PDF
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

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?