Totaro v. Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC.
Filing
35
ORDER RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 3/20/2012. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
12
ANTHONY TOTARO,
Plaintiff,
13
14
Case No.: C-11-5446 PJH (JSC)
ORDER RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER
v.
15
16
17
LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL
SECURITY, LLC,
Defendant.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Now pending before the Court is the parties’ dispute about an appropriate protective
order to govern the production of confidential information. (Dkt. No. 33.) Plaintiff seeks
entry of the Northern District’s standard protective order which does not include an
“attorneys’ eyes only” provision while Defendant seeks the ability to designate certain
discovery as “attorneys’ eyes only.” Upon review of the parties’ joint statement, and in light
of the sensitive nature of much of Defendant’s business, the Court concludes that entry of the
protective order with an “attorneys’ eyes only” provision is appropriate.
The entry of the protective order, however, does not mean that Defendant’s view of
what constitutes “highly confidential” information is necessarily correct. The protective order
defines highly confidential—attorneys’ eyes only information as “extremely sensitive”
1
“disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious
2
harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means.” (Dkt. No. 33 Ex. B ¶ 2.8.)
3
Pursuant to the protective order, should Defendant designate salary and similar information
4
about non-employees, or any other information, as subject to the attorneys’ eyes only
5
provision, and should Plaintiff challenge such designation, Defendant will bear the burden of
6
proving to this Court that the designation is appropriate. (Id. ¶ 6.) Such dispute may be
7
brought to the Court’s attention via joint statement, pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10
Dated: March 20, 2012
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
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?