Williams v. Rodriguez et al
PROTECTIVE ORDER granting 46 Consent MOTION for Confidentiality Order filed by Daimler Trucks North America LLC. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 9/19/2017. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Breanne J. Williams,
C/A No.: 0:17-1063-TLW-SVH
STIPULATED ORDER UNDER
) FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 502(d)
Alfredo Valencia Rodriguez; and Daimler )
Trucks North America LLC,
During discovery in this action the parties may be required to review and produce
documents that may contain attorney-client privileged communications, common-interest
privileged communications, joint-defense privileged communications, or work-product
material prepared or compiled in anticipation of litigation (“Protected Material”). The
parties agree that the danger of subject-matter waiver or other loss of protection as a
consequence of disclosure of Protected Material would cause them to expend undue time
and expense in an exhaustive review of documents before producing them. Accordingly,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), the parties wish to establish a framework
under which they may (i) retroactively demand the return and nonuse of Protected
Materials that they have produced; and (ii) avoid waiver of protections otherwise
applicable to Protected Materials that they have produced. The parties, through their
undersigned counsel, therefore agree:
This order shall govern any and all productions of Protected Material
during discovery in this action.
The production or making available for review, inspection, or copying by
the parties of documents that contain or comprise Protected Material, whether done
intentionally or inadvertently, shall not be a waiver of any attorney-client privilege,
common-interest privilege, joint-defense privilege, or work-product protection afforded
by federal or state law. This order shall be interpreted to provide the maximum protection
allowed by Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d).
A party that has produced, referred to, or made available for review,
inspection, or copying documents that contain or comprise Protected Material may
request in writing any and all receiving parties to return, sequester, or destroy
specifically-identified Protected Material contained therein. Within ten business days of
the receipt of such a request, the receiving party must either comply with the request or
seek relief from the Court as to the discoverability of the document(s) in dispute, in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and any applicable orders of the
Court. Parties that have provided Protected Material to third parties shall be responsible
for these third parties’ compliance.
Failure of a party to object promptly to the use of Protected Material by any
party or third party in this action, or any party in any other current or future federal or
state proceeding, shall not constitute waiver of these relevant privileges and protections
afforded by federal or state law.
Failure of a party to demand promptly the return, sequestration, or
destruction of Protected Material by any party or third party in this action, or any party in
any other current or future federal or state proceeding, shall not constitute waiver of these
relevant privileges or protections afforded by federal or state law.
The provisions of Federal Rule of Evidence 502(b)(2) are inapplicable to
the production of Protected Material under this order.
This order does not obligate any party to disclose documents that contain or
comprise of Protected Material, and, therefore, the parties may withhold any Protected
Material so long as they comply with applicable law.
Nothing herein is intended to or shall serve to limit a party’s right to
conduct a review of documents, electronically-stored information, or information
(including metadata) for relevance, responsiveness, or segregation of privileged and/or
protected information before discovery.
This order does not waive any party’s right to seek discovery of documents
that another party may consider protected by attorney-client privilege, common-interest
privilege, joint-defense privilege, or work-product protection and refuses to disclose on
that basis. This order does not supersede the parties’ obligations under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 37 and any applicable orders of this Court to “meet and confer” or
otherwise attempt to resolve their disputes before filing motions to compel disclosure or
This order does not waive any party’s rights or excuse any party’s
obligations under the Confidentiality Order in this case, which concerns the production of
documents containing or comprising of confidential information.
This order, entered into pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), is
enforceable as against the parties and as against third parties in this action, or any party in
any other current or future federal or state proceeding.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 19, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
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?