Crawford v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 17-cv-02664-RS (MEJ). (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180419a00
Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 18, 2018
Summary: DISCOVERY ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 96 MARIA-ELENA JAMES , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' focused Joint Letter Brief regarding three terms in a proposed protective order. Ltr. Br., Dkt. No. 96. The Court rules as follows: Issue I: The parties may designate material as Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only or Highly Confidential — Source Code. If the opposing party challenges the designation, the parties shall meet and confer regarding specific documents at issue
Summary: DISCOVERY ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 96 MARIA-ELENA JAMES , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' focused Joint Letter Brief regarding three terms in a proposed protective order. Ltr. Br., Dkt. No. 96. The Court rules as follows: Issue I: The parties may designate material as Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only or Highly Confidential — Source Code. If the opposing party challenges the designation, the parties shall meet and confer regarding specific documents at issue...
More
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 96
MARIA-ELENA JAMES, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is the parties' focused Joint Letter Brief regarding three terms in a proposed protective order. Ltr. Br., Dkt. No. 96. The Court rules as follows:
Issue I: The parties may designate material as Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only or Highly Confidential — Source Code. If the opposing party challenges the designation, the parties shall meet and confer regarding specific documents at issue. The parties are excused from the in-person meet and confer requirement, but must confer in good faith at least by telephone, and may not simply exchange their positions in writing. The parties may bring specific disputes to the undersigned by joint letter brief if they cannot resolve their disputes by meeting and conferring.
Issue II: The undersigned finds no basis for departing from the standard model protective order.
Issue III: The undersigned finds no basis for departing from the standard model protective order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
