Lawson v. City of Arcata et al

Filing 63

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying without prejudice 62 Stipulation re: Protective Order. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2020)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

MICHELLE CHARMAINE LAWSON.,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7
8
9

vs.
CITY OF ARCATA, ET. AL.,

Case No.: 4:18-cv-07238-YGR
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
STIPULATION RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 62

Defendants.

10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13
14
15
16

The parties have submitted their stipulated proposed protective order. (Dkt. No. 62.) The
request for entry of the proposed protected order is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to submission of a
corrected version of the proposed order for the following reasons:
The procedures set forth in section 6 of the proposed protective order are inconsistent with this
Court’s Standing Order In Civil Cases, paragraph 8(c). The Court notes that the Northern District

17

provides a model protective order for standard litigation on its website at:

18

https://cand.uscourts.gov/model-protective-orders. The Court generally will approve a protective

19

order consistent with the model, provided it substitutes language similar to the paragraph below, in

20

conformity with this Court’s Standing Order:

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6.3
Judicial Intervention. If the Parties cannot resolve a challenge without
court intervention, the parties shall follow the Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases
regarding Discovery and Discovery Motions. The parties may file a joint letter brief
regarding retaining confidentiality within 21 days of the initial notice of challenge or
within 14 days of the parties agreeing that the meet and confer process will not
resolve their dispute, whichever is earlier. Failure by a Designating Party to file such
discovery dispute letter within the applicable 21 or 14 day period (set forth above)
with the Court shall automatically waive the confidentiality designation for each
challenged designation. If, after submitting a joint letter brief, the Court allows that a
motion may be filed, any such motion must be accompanied by a competent
declaration affirming that the movant has complied with the meet and confer
requirements imposed in the preceding paragraph. The Court, in its discretion, may
elect to transfer the discovery matter to a Magistrate Judge.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

In addition, the parties may file a joint letter brief regarding a challenge to a
confidentiality designation at any time if there is good cause for doing so, including a
challenge to the designation of a deposition transcript or any portions thereof. If,
after submitting a joint letter brief, the Court allows that a motion may be filed, any
motion brought pursuant to this provision must be accompanied by a competent
declaration affirming that the movant has complied with the meet and confer
requirements imposed by the preceding paragraph. The Court, in its discretion, may
elect to refer the discovery matter to a Magistrate Judge.
The burden of persuasion in any such challenge proceeding shall be on the
Designating Party. Frivolous challenges, and those made for an improper purpose
(e.g., to harass or impose unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) may
expose the Challenging Party to sanctions. Unless the Designating Party has waived
the confidentiality designation by failing to file a letter brief to retain confidentiality
as described above, all parties shall continue to afford the material in question the
level of protection to which it is entitled under the Producing Party’s designation until
the court rules on the challenge.
The parties are further directed to comply with the Court’s Standing Order In Civil Cases, paragraph
8(c). See id. (“To the extent the parties’ proposed stipulated protective order varies from the model,

13

exclusive of paragraph 6.3 set forth above, the parties shall submit a redline comparison with the
14

model Stipulated Protective Order for Standard Litigation, along with their electronic form of
15

proposed order, to [e-mail].”).
16
17
18

This Order terminates Docket Number 62.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: September 10, 2020

_______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2