Smith et al v. Zimmer U.S., Inc. et al

Filing 31

ORDER re Protective Order; ORDER re 29 Notice (Other) filed by Zimmer U.S., Inc., Zimmer Inc.. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 2/5/2015. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2015)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
6
THOMAS A. SMITH, et al.,
7
Plaintiff,

No. C 14-0651 PJH

8
v.
9
ZIMMER U.S., INC.. et al.,

ORDER RE PROTECTIVE ORDER
FOR SEALED AND CONFIDENTIAL
DOCUMENTS

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Defendants.
_______________________________/
The parties have submitted for the court's approval, a stipulation and order for

13

protective order to protect confidential information that may be produced during discovery.

14

Included in this proposed order is a provision permitting the parties to file under seal any

15

pleading, motion paper, deposition transcript or other filed document that includes material

16

designated by the filing party as confidential. The court approves the protective order

17

insofar as it sets forth how the parties shall treat confidential information.

18

However, the court will not approve a broad protective order that essentially gives

19

each party carte blanche to decide which portions of the record will be sealed and,

20

therefore, not made part of the public record. See Civil L. R. 79-5 and Citizens First Nat'l

21

Bank v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 1999). Nor will the court approve a

22

protective order containing a provision for how confidential documents will be treated by the

23

court when used in conjunction with dispositive motions or at trial. See Kamakana v. City

24

of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). See also Judge Hamilton's Standing Order For

25

Cases Involving Sealed or Confidential Documents, which is available on the court's

26

website.

27
28

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) requires the court to determine whether good
cause exists to seal any part of the record of a case. Additionally, if the sealing is sought in

1

connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the showing required is "the most compelling

2

of reasons." Accordingly, no document shall be filed under seal, without a court order,

3

narrowly tailored to cover only the document, the particular portion of the document, or

4

category of documents for which good cause exists for filing under seal. To that end, if a

5

party wishes to file a document under seal, that party shall first file a written request for a

6

sealing order setting forth the good cause and accompanied by a proposed order that is

7

narrowly tailored as specified above. In making any such request, parties shall comply with

8

the procedures set forth in Civil L. R. 79-5 and in this court's standing order referred to

9

above, which also sets forth the requirements for maintaining the confidentiality of

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

documents used in motion practice and at trial.
Paragraph 7 of the proposed order submitted by the parties includes two alternatives

12

– one allowing any "Confidential" material to be filed under seal, without limitations, and

13

one requiring that "Confidential" material be filed according to Civil Local Rule 7-9.

14

Paragraph 7 is not acceptable because it improperly suggests that compliance with Civil

15

Local Rule 7-9 is optional.

16

The parties shall revise ¶ 7 of the proposed order in accordance with this order and

17

resubmit the proposed order to the court. Court-approved model protective orders are also

18

available on the court's website. In particular, the court advises the parties to review the

19

model Stipulated Protective Order for Standard Litigation, ¶ 12.3.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated: February 5, 2015
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

2