Karim v. Hewlett-Packard Company

Filing 49

ORDER by Judge Hamilton re protective order and motion for class certification. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2013)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
6
NAD KARIM,
7
Plaintiff,

No. C 12-5240 PJH

8
v.
9
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,

ORDER RE PROTECTIVE ORDER
AND MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Defendant.
_______________________________/
Before the court are the parties’ letter brief regarding the joint application for entry of

13

protective order, and plaintiff’s motion to change time regarding the filing of his motion for

14

class certification. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered the arguments

15

and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby rules as

16

follows.

17

As to the protective order, the court agrees with plaintiff that the model protective

18

order for standard litigation is appropriate in this case, as opposed to the model protective

19

order for “litigation involving patents, highly sensitive information, and/or trade secrets.”

20

While defendants argue that this case involves “HP’s proprietary information,” it appears

21

that the bulk of defendants’ portion of the letter brief relates to the privacy concerns of its

22

customers. The court does find that those privacy concerns must be protected through a

23

protective order, but does not find that those concerns warrant the adoption of defendants’

24

requested protective order. Instead, the court directs the parties to meet and confer, and to

25

submit a stipulated protective order based on the model protective order for standard

26

litigation, but modified to include the customer-privacy protections described in Khalilpour v.

27

Cellco Partnership, 2010 WL 1267749 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2010). The parties shall submit a

28

stipulated protective order by July 19, 2013.

1

In light of the recent discovery dispute, the court does find it appropriate to continue

2

the date for the filing of plaintiff’s motion for class certification. However, plaintiff’s

3

proposed order is conditioned on the resolution of a motion to compel that has not yet been

4

filed, so the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion. Instead, the court extends the time for the

5

filing of the class certification motion by 30 days, to August 16, 2013.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 12, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2