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)

Download PDF
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?