Guzman v. Jones
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-03757-HSG
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 16
In Guzman v. Dorsey, Judge Gilliam entered a stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery materials in the parties’ litigation.
Mayito Guzman, D. Dorsey and the other defendants, their counsel, nonparties producing or receiving discovery, experts, witnesses, court personnel, and litigation-support providers who handle protected material.
What happened
Guzman v. Dorsey, et al. is a case in which the parties asked the Northern District of California to protect sensitive information exchanged during discovery. The order says the case may involve information about the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, confidential informants, prison investigations, and prison procedures.
The protective order limits use of protected information to prosecuting, defending, or settling this case. It creates two designations—“CONFIDENTIAL” and “CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”—and restricts who may receive each type. It also establishes procedures for challenging confidentiality designations and for handling inadvertent disclosures, subpoenas, and privileged material.
The court approved the parties’ stipulation on May 12, 2023. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam ordered that protected material generally may not be filed publicly without permission, and that most protected material must be returned or destroyed within 60 days after the case’s final disposition.
The detailed version
- Guzman v. Jones · No. 4:19-cv-03757-HSG
- Haywood Gilliam
- May 12, 2023
Background
Mayito Guzman sued D. Dorsey and other defendants. The parties, through their lawyers, stipulated to a protective order because discovery could involve confidential, proprietary, private, or security-sensitive information. The order states that the materials may concern the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and its employees and agents, including information about confidential informants, investigations of staff and inmates, and procedures available only to staff on a need-to-know basis. The order also notes that Guzman is a former California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation inmate and that defendants asserted safety and security concerns about providing him access to certain information.
Protective designations and permitted use
The order protects discovery material qualifying for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Parties and nonparties may designate material as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” Designations must be limited to material that qualifies for protection; mass, indiscriminate, and routine designations are prohibited. Protected material may be used only to prosecute, defend, or attempt to settle this litigation, and it must be stored securely.
“CONFIDENTIAL” material may be disclosed, when reasonably necessary for the litigation, to specified people such as counsel, parties and certain employees, experts, the court, court personnel, court reporters, professional vendors, and certain witnesses. Those receiving the material generally must sign an acknowledgment agreeing to follow the order. “CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” material may be disclosed to the qualified persons listed in the order, but not to a party—including Guzman, whom the order describes as no longer incarcerated—or to another inmate or third person, unless previously agreed or ordered by the court. Counsel may use the information to provide legal advice without disclosing the specific information to their clients.
Challenges, public filing, and final disposition
A party or nonparty may challenge a confidentiality designation. The challenger generally must provide written notice and first meet and confer in good faith. If the dispute remains unresolved, the designating party must file a motion to retain confidentiality within the deadlines stated in the order, or the designation may be automatically waived. The designating party bears the burden of persuasion in the challenge proceeding, and frivolous or improper challenges may result in sanctions.
The protective order does not itself authorize filing protected material under seal. A party seeking to file such material under seal must follow the court’s local sealing rules and obtain a court order. If protected material is used or introduced as a trial exhibit, it generally becomes public unless the trial judge makes the required findings in advance.
Within 60 days after final disposition, each receiving party must return or destroy protected material and provide written certification, subject to the order’s exception allowing counsel to retain archival copies of specified litigation files. The court’s order states: “PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.” Judge Haywood S. Gilliam entered the protective order on May 12, 2023.
Read the full 16-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.