Leeder v. Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates, Department of Defense

Filing 72

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting 56 defendant's Motion for Protective Order.(hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2011)

1
2

*E-FILED 11-23-2011*

3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

7

No. C10-01822 HRL

SUE A. LEEDER,

12

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14
15

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, LEON E.
PANETTA, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

[Re: Docket No. 56]

Defendant.
/

16
17
18
19

This is an employment discrimination action brought by plaintiff Sue A. Leeder, a
former employee of the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA).
Defendant moves for entry of a protective order governing materials to be produced in

20

discovery. Both sides agree that a protective order is appropriate. The only dispute is whether

21

a single-tier “Confidential” provision is sufficient (plaintiff’s view), or whether a second-tier

22

“Highly Confidential–Attorney’s Eyes Only” (AEO) provision reasonably is necessary

23

(defendant’s contention). Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, as well as

24

the arguments of counsel, this court grants defendant’s motion for protective order, with some

25

modification, as discussed below.

26

At this point, no one knows all of the kinds of documentation that may come into play in

27

this litigation. Nevertheless, on the record presented, and having weighed legitimate competing

28

interests and possible prejudice, this court finds that defendant’s proposed order strikes an

1

appropriate balance between interests in liberal discovery and in safeguarding sensitive

2

information. The court cannot exclude the possibility that there may well be documents

3

produced that will require greater protection than that afforded under a “Confidential”

4

designation. Plaintiff has not managed to persuade that she should be free to make wholesale

5

disclosure of designated documents to any DCAA employee. Nor is it readily apparent that

6

permitting an AEO designation will hamstring plaintiff in the prosecution of this case.

7

Defendant has represented to the court that plaintiff herself may access (1) documents

8

pertaining to audits on which she worked and (2) 18 audit files that defendant says it is prepared

9

to produce—notwithstanding that those documents may be designated AEO. In any event, if
the parties should disagree whether a particular confidentiality designation is justified, there are

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

procedures for challenging the designation and resolving any such disputes.

12

Accordingly, the court will enter the proposed protective order submitted by defendant,

13

with modifications to reflect that (1) the court will limit its jurisdiction to enforce the terms of

14

the protective order after final disposition of the litigation; and (2) in the event of any disclosure

15

or other discovery-related dispute, the parties (and any affected non-parties) shall comply with

16

the undersigned’s Standing Order re Civil Discovery Disputes.

17
18

SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 23, 2011

19
HOWARD R. LLOYD
20

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1

5:10-cv-01822-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Claire T. Cormier

3

Mark Walter Hostetter

4

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

5
6
7
8
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
3