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
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?