Diversified Metal Products, Incorporated v. Bechtel National, Inc.

Filing 35

ORDER ADOPTING STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER re 34 Stipulation filed by Diversified Metal Products, Incorporated. Signed by Judge Ronald E Bush. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by krb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF IDAHO

DIVERSIFIED METAL PRODUCTS,
INCORPORATED, an Idaho corporation,

Case No.: 09-415-EJL-REB

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING STIPULATION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

vs.

(Docket No. 34)

BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC., a Nevada
corporation,
Defendant.

Currently pending before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation for Protective Order for
Evidentiary Materials Produced by EnergySolutions Federal EPC, Inc. (Docket No. 34). Having
carefully reviewed the record and otherwise being fully advised, the Court ADOPTS the parties’
Stipulation.
Additionally, the Court notes that the parties’ agreement details filing documents under
seal with the Court. See Stip. ¶ 3 (Docket No. 34). If it becomes necessary to file with the Court
or submit as an exhibit at any hearing or trial confidential material or transcripts, depositions,
exhibits, pleadings, memorandums, documents, or other materials containing, reproducing, or
paraphrasing confidential material, the party filing such submission shall seek to do so under
Court seal pursuant to the rules and standards for the filing documents under seal, if those
standards can be satisfied. See D. Idaho L. Civ. R. 5.3; Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 504
F.3d 792, 802 (9th Cir. 2007) (providing that “compelling reasons” are required to seal
ORDER - 1

documents related to a dispositive motion); Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that a “good cause” standard must be met in order to seal
documents attached to nondispositive motions).
Moreover, the Court notes the parties’ agreement that inadvertent disclosure of privileged
material shall not be deemed a waiver of the privilege, under certain circumstances. See Stip. ¶ 9
(Docket No. 34). In that regard, the parties’ Stipulation will be interpreted consistent with
Federal Rule of Evidence 502(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 14, 2011

Honorable Ronald E. Bush
U. S. Magistrate Judge

ORDER - 2