ORDER ON JOINT LETTER RE PROTECTIVE ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 35

WILLIAM H. ORRICK, District Judge.

The parties dispute the appropriate protective order for this case. See Dkt. No. 35. Plaintiff proposes this district's model protective order for standard litigation. Defendants propose a slightly modified version. According to the parties, the key differences between their proposals are that (1) defendants' proposed order would afford blanket "confidential" designation to all information "related to the criminal investigation incidental to the event forming the basis of this lawsuit," Dkt. No. 35-1 ¶ 2; (2) defendants' proposed order would place the burden on plaintiff to establish, by motion filed with the Court, that defendants had improperly designated information as confidential; and (3) defendants' proposed order would require that any such motion be filed under seal. In addition, each party accuses the other of using evidence in this case to generate sympathetic media and public attention.

There is a strong presumption of access to judicial records. See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). It may well be that the official information privilege will apply to many of the documents that defendants will produce in this case. But I agree with plaintiff that this district's model protective order for standard litigation is the more appropriate protective order here; it affords adequate protection to the confidentiality concerns of each party and will by no means prevent defendants from maintaining the confidentiality of information related to the criminal investigation where appropriate. Notwithstanding the use of defendants' proposed order in some other cases in this district, there is no good cause to shift the burden on establishing the propriety of the designation of confidential documents.

Plaintiff's request for the district's model protective order for standard litigation is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall submit an electronic version of the protective order attached as Exhibit B to the joint letter and I will enter it. The parties are further advised to comply in all respects with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and my Standing Order On Administrative Motions To File Under Seal. The parties are also reminded, as I indicated at the Case Management Conference, that this case is to be tried in the courtroom, not in the press. Any material violations of the Protective Order will have consequences.

IT IS SO ORDERED.