Case4:12-cv-05404-YGR Document56 Filed09/15/15 Page1 of 2
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 12-cv-5404 YGR
`
`ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
`STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 55
`
`
`
`ZACK WARD AND THOMAS BUCHAR, on
`behalf of themselves and all others similarly
`situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`The parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. No. 55) is hereby DENIED WITHOUT
`
`PREJUDICE. The parties’ proposed order does not conform to this District’s Model Protective
`
`Order or to the undersigned’s discovery procedures. The parties may file an amended motion for
`
`entry of the stipulated protective order. The District's Model Protective Order1 and the
`
`undersigned’s discovery procedures2 are available for review online.
`
`Further, the parties are directed to include the below language at Paragraph 6.3 on Judicial
`
`Intervention in order to conform to the undersigned’s discovery procedures:
`
`6.3
`
`Judicial Intervention. If the Parties cannot resolve a challenge without court
`
`intervention, the parties shall follow the Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases regarding Discovery
`
`and Discovery Motions. The parties may file a joint letter brief regarding retaining confidentiality
`
`
`1 See United States District Court, Northern District of California, “Stipulated Protective Orders,”
`http://cand.uscourts.gov/stipprotectorder.
`
` 2
`
` See United States District Court, Northern District of California, Standing Orders of Judge
`Gonzalez Rogers, http://cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`
`Case4:12-cv-05404-YGR Document56 Filed09/15/15 Page2 of 2
`
`
`
`within 21 days of the initial notice of challenge or within 14 days of the parties agreeing that the
`
`meet and confer process will not resolve their dispute, whichever is earlier. Failure by a
`
`Designating Party to file such discovery dispute letter within the applicable 21 or 14 day period (set
`
`forth above) with the Court shall automatically waive the confidentiality designation for each
`
`challenged designation. If, after submitting a joint letter brief, the Court allows that a motion may
`
`be filed, any such motion must be accompanied by a competent declaration affirming that the
`
`movant has complied with the meet and confer requirements imposed in the preceding paragraph.
`
`The Court, in its discretion, may elect to transfer the discovery matter to a Magistrate Judge.
`
`In addition, the parties may file a joint letter brief regarding a challenge to a confidentiality
`
`designation at any time if there is good cause for doing so, including a challenge to the designation
`
`of a deposition transcript or any portions thereof. If, after submitting a joint letter brief, the Court
`
`allows that a motion may be filed, any motion brought pursuant to this provision must be
`
`accompanied by a competent declaration affirming that the movant has complied with the meet and
`
`confer requirements imposed by the preceding paragraph. The Court, in its discretion, may elect to
`
`refer the discovery matter to a Magistrate Judge.
`
`The burden of persuasion in any such challenge proceeding shall be on the Designating
`
`Party. Frivolous challenges, and those made for an improper purpose (e.g., to harass or impose
`
`unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) may expose the Challenging Party to sanctions.
`
`Unless the Designating Party has waived the confidentiality designation by failing to file a letter
`
`brief to retain confidentiality as described above, all parties shall continue to afford the material in
`
`question the level of protection to which it is entitled under the Producing Party’s designation until
`
`the court rules on the challenge.
`
`
`
`
`
`This Order terminates Docket No. 55.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Date: September 15, 2015
`
`
`
`_______________________________________
`YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court