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)

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