Nunez et al v. City of San Jose

Filing 34

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 33 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 1. (hrllc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

TONY NUNEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

Case No.5:17-cv-03860-LHK (HRL)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT NO. 1

v.
CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 33

Defendants.

17
18

In this civil rights/wrongful death case both sides agree that a protective order should be

19

put in place to safeguard certain information produced in discovery. However, they cannot agree

20

on what the appropriate level(s) of protection should be. Plaintiffs contend that the Northern

21

District model order (with a single tier “Confidential” designation) is just right for cases like this.

22

Defendants want enhanced protection through two, additional, higher-level tiers: “Confidential –

23

Limited” and “Attorneys’ Eyes Only.”

24

Plaintiffs cite to a number of civil rights/police misconduct cases in the Northern District

25

where the court rejected defendants’ arguments for one or more higher-level designations and

26

concluded that the model order’s single “Confidential” designation struck the proper balance

27

between protection of information and the interest of justice.

28

1

In support of their position, defendants here say that there have been cases in the past

2

where relatives or friends of the alleged victims of claimed police misconduct have made threats

3

on social media sites against the officers involved in those cases. They also cite to privacy rights,

4

to potential disclosure of personal identifiers (such as date of birth or Social Security number), and

5

to the so-called state official information privilege.

6

The specter of threats to officers in this case is just speculation and the possibility that

7

something like that could occur is not a basis for enhanced protection of discovery information.

8

Privacy rights must give way to legitimate litigation interests. Personal identifiers should, of

9

course, be redacted. And, the court makes no ruling here about possibly privileged information.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

The parties shall submit forthwith a proposed protective order that follows the Northern
District’s model order with a single designation of “Confidential.”
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 28, 2018

14
15
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2