Bautista v. Costco Wholesale Corporation et al

Filing 28

ORDER FOR REVISIONS TO 27 PROPOSED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Susan van Keulen on 2/6/2024. (svklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2024)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CINTIA BAUTISTA, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, ORDER FOR REVISIONS TO PROPOSED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 27 Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 23-cv-02556-BLF (SVK) Before the Court is the Parties’ draft stipulated protective order. Dkt. 27 (the “Proposed 12 13 PO”). The Court has reviewed the Proposed PO, along with a redline showing the changes made 14 by the Parties to this District’s model protective order (“Model PO”), and concludes that several 15 changes are necessary to the Proposed PO to properly reflect the legal standards and procedures 16 for designating confidential material in this litigation. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the 17 Parties to submit a revised proposed protective order by February 13, 2024, as follows:1 • 18 The Parties shall delete the introductory “Good Cause Statement” at pages 1-3 of the 19 Proposed PO and all references to that statement elsewhere in the document. The Court 20 declines to prejudge whether particular information or documents are properly designated 21 as protected material. This determination, which is highly fact-specific, will be based on 22 the showing made at the appropriate time, such as if a challenge to a confidentiality 23 designation is made under Section 6 or a party seeks to file material under seal pursuant to 24 Civil Local Rule 79-5. • 25 26 The Parties shall restore the language at page 5, lines 19-28, except that they may replace the last sentence (page 5, lines 27-28) with their language at page 6, lines 1-2. 27 28 1 Page and line citations refer to the redline of the Proposed PO provided to the Court. 1 The Court notes that the Parties have made substantial changes to section 6 regarding 2 challenges to confidentiality designations. Regardless of these changes, the Court 3 emphasizes that all disputes under the protective order must conform to the procedures set 4 forth in Judge van Keulen’s Civil and Discovery Referral Matters Standing Order, 5 including but not limited to the meet and confer requirements and the requirement that 6 disputes be presented in the form of a joint statement. Upon submission of a revised 7 proposed protective order, the Court will make its standard revisions to confirm that these 8 procedures apply. 9 United States District Court Northern District of California • • The Parties shall restore the language in section 12.3 regarding the showing that must be 10 made before the Court will permit material to be filed under seal, specifically page 15, 11 lines18-20. 12 • After the Parties have revised the PO, they must file both a redline against the Model PO. 13 • Dkt. 27 is TERMINATED. 14 SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: February 6, 2024 16 17 SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 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?