Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton
Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor
Kelly Collins, Courtroom Deputy
(510) 637-1296
STANDING ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
DISPUTES, PROTECTIVE ORDERS, AND ESI ORDERS
Discovery Disputes
1. If meeting and conferring by email, letter, or phone call proves unsuccessful in
resolving a discovery dispute, the parties must confer face-to-face by
videoconference before seeking relief from the court. Any party refusing to
participate in the videoconference will do so at the risk of sanctions.
If the dispute is not resolved, then, within ten business days of the
videoconference, the parties must file a Joint Letter with the court. The Joint
Letter may not exceed five pages. The Joint Letter must include a description of
every issue in dispute and, with respect to each such issue, a detailed summary
of each party’s final substantive position and its respective proposed resolution
on each issue. On receipt of the Joint Letter, the court will determine what, if
any, future proceedings are necessary. The procedures in this order apply to
disputes among the parties to this action as well as disputes between parties and
non-parties served with subpoenas.
Proposed Protective Orders
2. The court will not approve a broad protective order that essentially gives each
party carte blanche to decide which portions of the record will be sealed and,
therefore, not made part of the public record. See Civ. L.R. 79-5; Citizens First
Nat'l Bank v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 1999). Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(c) as well as the local rules require the court to determine whether good
cause exists to seal any portion of the record. Therefore, all proposed protective
orders submitted for court approval which contain provisions for filing documents
under seal, must also provide a procedure for obtaining the sealing order that
complies with Civ. L.R. 79-5.
Redline Comparisons
3. This district maintains a model stipulated protective order and a model order
regarding the discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”).1 When filing
a proposed stipulated protective order or ESI order, the parties must also file a
redline comparison of their proposed order against its respective model order.
1
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/forms/model-protective-orders/
https://cand.uscourts.gov/forms/e-discovery-esi-guidelines/
The subject redline must clearly show all tracked changes from the model order.
Additionally, as required for all proposed orders, the parties must also send a
Microsoft Word version of their order to
[email protected].
Use of Confidential Documents at Trial
4. Any document will lose its confidential status if offered as an exhibit at trial,
absent a showing of the “most compelling” reasons. See Manual for Complex
Litigation § 21.432; Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135-
36 (9th Cir. 2003). This rule applies despite any provision of a protective order to
the contrary or any prior confidentiality designation assigned to such a document.
Any party believing that a document, portions thereof, or witness testimony
should remain confidential during trial must request in advance of trial that the
court take extraordinary measures to protect the confidentiality of that
information. The request must be made in writing and filed no later than the date
on which pretrial papers are due.
Rev. 10-04-2021
