Krylova v. Genentech, Inc.
Filing
38
ORDER. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 03/12/2013. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2013)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
IRINA KRYLOVA,
Plaintiff,
8
9
v.
ORDER
GENENTECH, INC.,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C 12-4120 PJH
Defendant.
_______________________________/
12
13
Before the court is the request by defendant for 1) approval of its proposed
14
protective order regarding designation and use of confidential information, and 2) an order
15
requiring plaintiff to return documents containing defendant’s proprietary and confidential
16
information. The court has reviewed the letter briefs submitted by the parties and orders as
17
follows.
18
With regard to the latter request, plaintiff shall return all Genentech proprietary and
19
confidential information as required by the Proprietary Information Agreement that she
20
signed upon accepting employment at Genentech no later than Friday March 15, 2013.
21
Plaintiff’s return of the documents was inappropriately conditioned upon a promise by
22
defendant to produce them back to her pursuant to a request for production of documents.
23
Plaintiff’s obligation to return the documents is entirely unrelated to defendant’s discovery
24
obligations. Plaintiff may propound discovery requests and defendant may respond as
25
permitted by the federal and local rules. If plaintiff is not satisfied by any response of
26
defendant, plaintiff must simply follow the rules by first meeting and conferring with
27
defendant, and then filing a motion to compel if necessary. The preemptive self-help in
28
which plaintiff is currently engaging will not be condoned by the court.
1
With regard to the protective order, it is not clear from plaintiff’s March 7, 2013
2
response that a dispute remains given the following language, “Plaintiff has modified her
3
position. She does not object, in principle, to the protective order proposed by Defendant in
4
that it puts the onus on the designating party to bring a motion if the issues are not
5
resolved. Plaintiff has no objection whatsoever to the Northern District form of protective
6
order.” While plaintiff does express some concern about potential over-designations by
7
defendant, it is not clear which, if any, of the minor suggested modifications to the model
8
order are objectionable.
9
Accordingly, the parties shall once again meet and confer about a stipulated
protective order to be submitted to the court as soon as practicable. If the parties are
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
unable to agree, they shall e-file a joint request (in letter form) no later than Friday March
12
15, 2013, that the court approve either the model order without modification or defendant’s
13
proposed modified version of the model order.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 12, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
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?