1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 7 8 DEBRA COHEN TUDOR, Case No. 22-cv-01113-RFL (PHK) 9 Plaintiff, ORDER RESOLVING DISPUTE RE PROTECTIVE ORDER 10 v. Re: Dkts. 55, 60, 61 11 STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. 12 Defendants. 13 14 This case has been referred to the undersigned for all discovery purposes. See Dkt. 56. 15 Now pending before the Court is a joint letter brief and follow-up briefing regarding a dispute 16 between the Plaintiff Debra Tudor (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant State Farm General Insurance Co. 17 (“State Farm”) as to certain proposed provisions of the Protective Order governing confidential 18 information and documents produced in discovery in this case. [Dkt. 55; Dkt. 60; Dkt. 61]. Both 19 Parties agree that a Protective Order should be entered for this case, but have raised specific 20 disputes regarding certain terms to be included in the Protective Order. 21 After reviewing the Parties’ initial discovery letter brief [Dkt. 55], the Court directed the 22 Parties to fully comply with the undersigned’s Discovery Standing Order and to meet and confer 23 pursuant to the provisions therein. [Dkt. 57]. The Parties filed a joint status report indicating that, 24 after further meet and confer, the Parties were incapable of narrowing this dispute. [Dkt. 58]. The 25 Court thereafter ordered the Parties to submit copies of their competing versions of the Protective 26 Order, along with a statement identifying those edits proposed by the opposing side to which each 27 Party did not object. [Dkt. 59]. The Parties filed their respective competing versions of the 1 Protective Order for which that Party had no objection. See Dkts. 60-63. In light of the number of 2 changes for which both sides no longer had objections, the Court ordered the Parties to submit a 3 redline version of the Protective Order which incorporated all non-objectionable edits from both 4 sides and identified those remaining proposed changes from each side (color coded for clarity) for 5 which objections and thus disputes remain. [Dkt. 64]. On October 10, 2025, the Parties submitted 6 the redline version of the Protective Order by email to the Court, but did not file that redline 7 version on the docket. The Court attaches that redline version of the proposed Protective Order as 8 an Appendix to this Order. 9 The Court finds the dispute suitable for resolution without oral argument. See Civil L.R. 10 7-1(b). 11 The Court is issuing the final Protective Order for this case as a separate docket entry, 12 which reflects the resolution of the disputes as analyzed herein. 13 LEGAL STANDARD 14 The generally applicable legal standards for discovery are well-known. The Court has 15 broad discretion and authority to manage discovery. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Lee Inv. LLC, 16 641 F.3d 1126, 1136 n.10 (9th Cir. 2011) (“District courts have wide latitude in controlling 17 discovery, and their rulings will not be overturned in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.”); 18 Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Int., 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court’s discretion extends to 19 crafting discovery orders that may expand, limit, or differ from the relief requested. See 20 Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998) (holding trial courts have “broad discretion to 21 tailor discovery narrowly and to dictate the sequence of discovery”). 22 “It is well-established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court 23 order to the contrary, presumptively public.” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 24 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides 25 that “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, 26 embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following . . 27 . requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial 1 “While courts generally make a finding of good cause before issuing a protective order, a 2 court need not do so where (as here) the parties stipulate to such an order.” In re Roman Cath. 3 Archbishop of Portland in Or., 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011). The Ninth Circuit has 4 recognized that district courts have “broad latitude to grant protective orders to prevent disclosure 5 of materials for many types of information, including, but not limited to, trade secrets or other 6 confidential research, development, or commercial information.” Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. 7 Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts have recognized that, absent the 8 entry of a protective order, the public disclosure of information such as financial information, 9 customer names, employee lists, business proposals, and business pitches may result in 10 competitive harm. See Bayside Sols., Inc. v. Avila, No. 21-cv-08738-PJH, 2022 WL 3215010, at 11 *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2022) (citing In re Elec. Arts, 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008); In re 12 Google Location History Litig., 514 F. Supp. 3d 1147, 1162 (N.D. Cal. 2021)). The scope of a 13 district court’s discretion in discovery matters includes the “decision to grant, lift or modify a 14 protective order[.]” Roman Cath. Archbishop, 661 F.3d at 423. 15 DISCUSSION 16 The proposed Protective Order presented to the Court here is largely based on the Northern 17 District of California’s Model Stipulated Protective Order (for standard litigation) (available at 18 https://cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CAND_StandardProtOrd.Feb2022_0.pdf) 19 (hereafter “Model PO”). From the final redline submitted by the Parties, it appears that virtually 20 all changes proposed by Plaintiff have been resolved (with the sole exception discussed below), 21 and the bulk of the disputes concern edits proposed by State Farm to that Model PO. Plaintiff 22 objects to State Farm’s proposed changes. Some of State Farm’s proposed changes to the Model 23 PO (as well as some of the arguments in favor of those proposed edits) appear to be adapted from 24 or conceptually derived from provisions of the Northern District’s Model Protective Order for 25 Litigation Involving Patents, Highly Sensitive Confidential Information and/or Trade Secrets 26 (available at 27 https://cand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ND_Cal_Patent_Highly_Sensitive_Model_ 1 “The Northern District's model protective order is presumptively reasonable.” Hernandez 2 v. Syncrasy, No. 21-cv-09212-CRB (LJC), 2023 WL 2600452, at * 2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2023) 3 (quoting In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., No. 13-MD-02420-YGR-DMR, 2017 WL 4 930317, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2017)). “A party seeking to deviate from the [Northern 5 District’s] model protective order bears the burden of showing the specific harm and prejudice that 6 will result if its request is not granted.” Id. (quoting ESC-Toy Ltd. v. Sony Interactive Ent. LLC, 7 No. 21-CV-00778-EMC-DMR, 2022 WL 1714627, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2022)). 8 Dispute re: Consulting Attorneys 9 Based on the Parties’ briefing, the primary dispute here relates to the various provisions of 10 the Model PO which allow for disclosure of confidential information to experts and consultants. 11 The specific dispute here centers on Plaintiff’s consultants who are attorneys but are not counsel 12 of record in this case, so-called “consulting attorneys.” In particular, State Farm raises concerns 13 about Plaintiff’s engagement of one or more consulting attorneys, without State Farm knowing 14 who such consulting attorneys are (since they are not counsel of record) and without any 15 provisions in the Model PO to allow State Farm to consider whether there is a basis to object to 16 disclosure of State Farm confidential information to such consulting attorneys. In particular, State 17 Farm appears concerned that any consulting attorneys are or may be engaged in current or future 18 litigation against State Farm involving disputes similar to the causes of action in this case relating 19 to water loss claims. 20 State Farm argues that it “recently learned that other plaintiffs’ counsel in California have 21 shared State Farm’s confidential information in violation of the terms of protective orders, 22 including under the guise of an undisclosed ‘consulting attorney’ role, and that such improper and 23 undisclosed sharing of State Farm’s confidential may now be commonplace.” [Dkt. 55 at 4]. 24 Based on these issues which arose in other cases (and admittedly not involving Plaintiff’s attorney 25 here), State Farm has proposed edits to the Model PO which exclude “consulting attorneys” from 26 the definition of “Experts” to whom “Confidential Information” may be disclosed (even if they 27 execute the undertaking to be bound by the Protective Order), effectively barring any “consulting 1 State Farm has also proposed a requirement that, prior to any disclosure of any confidential 2 information to any person authorized to receive such information, the Party designating material as 3 confidential must receive seven days’ notice prior to any such planned disclosure, including a 4 copy of that person’s undertaking to be bound by the Protective Order (which would identify the 5 receiving person including non-testifying consultants). Id. at 9. 6 State Farm argues that these additional limitations on disclosure of its confidential 7 information are necessary because of concerns about improper public disclosure of State Farm’s 8 confidential documents and information by other lawyers in other cases, including in particular an 9 attorney named Schaffer. [Dkt. 55 at 5]. Mr. Schaffer has litigated against State Farm recently, he 10 is or was apparently a “consulting attorney” (but not counsel of record) for the plaintiff in a 11 different lawsuit against State Farm, and he allegedly consults with “many other lawyers in 12 California on State Farm matters.” Id. at 5-6. In a Central District of California action involving 13 Mr. Schaffer (representing a different plaintiff than Plaintiff here) against State Farm, the court 14 there entered a modified protective order which incorporated edits requested by State Farm due to 15 findings that Mr. Schaffer was slow to comply with protective orders in other cases involving 16 State Farm and because he apparently attempted to subpoena confidential State Farm documents 17 from a “friendly” plaintiff’s law firm in an apparent attempt to bypass the protective order 18 covering those documents. See Tong v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., No. 2:24-cv-02219-DSF-MAR, 19 2024 WL 5472414, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2024) (“The Court finds it necessary to include 20 Defendant's additional protections given Plaintiffs' counsel's belated compliance with protective 21 orders in other cases against Defendant and their efforts to subpoena Attorney Dawson in the 22 Mojica matter to obtain Defendant's confidential information outside the limitations of a protective 23 order.”) (emphasis in original). 24 In Tong, State Farm also submitted a declaration indicating that a list of State Farm’s 25 “confidential training material and claims guidelines” identical to a list compiled by Mr. Schaffer 26 in another case “appeared as a blog post on the website of another plaintiffs’ [law] firm who also 27 frequently handled cases against [State Farm].” Id. State Farm argues that Plaintiff’s counsel in 1 public by that blog post, which allegedly is based on Mr. Schaffer’s compilation of confidential 2 State Farm documents “made by mining the contents of confidential documents produced by State 3 Farm pursuant to protective order in another matter.” [Dkt. 55 at 5]. 4 State Farm proposes its edits to the Model PO based on the concerns that it lacks the 5 opportunity to object to disclosure of its confidential information to any consulting attorneys 6 because, based on what has happened in these other cases, such disclosure risks further “erosion” 7 of the protections of protective orders in this and other cases. Id. at 6 (“If State Farm does not 8 know who has access to its information, it cannot take necessary steps to protect it.”). 9 In opposition, Plaintiff argues that State Farm’s proposed edits to the Model PO are 10 unnecessary. Plaintiff argues, first, that any alleged “improper disclosure” of State Farm’s 11 confidential information “in other cases—cases handled by other attorneys” are “totally irrelevant 12 to this case.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff stresses that “State Farm does not contend that plaintiff’s counsel 13 Bruce Cohen has participated in these wrongful disclosures.” Id. 14 Plaintiff argues that State Farm’s proposed edits to the Model PO’s paragraph 7.4 “would 15 force [Plaintiff] to disclose to State Farm the identity of the consultants with whom she has shared 16 covered materials, which would violate her attorney client, attorney work product, and attorney 17 consultant privileges.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff argues that “State Farm has made no secret of the fact 18 that its desire in obtaining this information is to be able to object to [Plaintiff]’s selection of 19 consultants/experts; multiple previous PO versions offered by State Farm gave it the right to not 20 only review, but in fact veto, [Plaintiff]’s selection of consultants/experts.” Id. 21 Contrary to State Farm, Plaintiff proposes editing the Model PO to clarify that 22 “Consultants” (who sign an undertaking to abide by the Protective Order) are expressly authorized 23 to receive an opposing party’s designated confidential information. Id. at 2. Plaintiff concedes 24 that the definitions of “Party” and “Receiving Party” in the Model PO already include consultants, 25 but argues that this proposed edit is necessary “to avoid any possible protest by State Farm.” Id. 26 Under the Model PO, the term “Expert” is defined to include both an “expert witness” and 27 a “consultant.” Model PO at ¶ 2.6. Accordingly, under the Model PO, a non-testifying consultant 1 protective order. Id. at ¶ 7.2(c). There is no requirement in the Model PO itself to pre-identify 2 consultants to whom disclosure of confidential information is contemplated. There are of course 3 separate requirements for identifying testifying experts (and the facts/data they considered) under 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). By contrast, the Court’s Model Highly Confidential PO 5 has two levels of confidentiality designations for documents/information (“Confidential” and 6 “Highly Confidential”) and thus contains a procedure for approving or objecting to disclosure of 7 highly confidential information to both certain in-house counsel and to experts. See Model Highly 8 Confidential PO at ¶ 7.4. 9 It is apparent that State Farm’s proposed edits to the Model PO conceptually attempt to 10 graft onto the Model PO a procedure for pre-identification (and thus a chance to object prior to 11 disclosure) of anyone receiving confidential information without incorporating the provisions of 12 the Model Highly Confidential PO. More importantly, as noted, the effect of State Farm’s 13 proposed edit to the definition of “Experts” would remove “consulting attorneys” from being able 14 to receive any confidential information at all. Conversely, Plaintiff’s proposed edit to the Model 15 PO would confirm that any consultant can receive confidential information (where Plaintiff treats 16 attorneys who are not counsel of record as “consultants”). 17 One potential approach for resolving this dispute is to require any attorney to enter 18 appearance on the docket, if that attorney is advising a Party about this litigation and if there is a 19 desire to disclose the opposing Party’s confidential information to that consulting attorney. See, 20 e.g., Future Link Sys. LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp., 154 F.4th 1370, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2025) 21 (affirming district court’s denial of request to modify protective order which “requires counsel to 22 file a notice of appearance to have access to confidential materials. . . . [T]his is a ‘standard 23 provision in Texas’[.]”). Requiring consulting attorneys to enter appearance would result in 24 identifying them. However, that blanket approach is not “standard” in this District as reflected in 25 both model protective orders. 26 Further, just because a consultant is a member of the bar does not necessarily mean that 27 every such consulting attorney is acting in their capacity as litigation counsel—attorneys may have 1 skills. See, e.g., C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Med. Components, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00754-HCN-DAO, 2020 2 WL 5107632, at *2-4 & n.3 (D. Utah Aug. 31, 2020) (denying motion for protective order to bar 3 disclosure of confidential information to two technical advisors who are lawyers: “[Moving party] 4 Bard also argues that if MedComp wants [consultants] Judge Rader and Mr. Kunin to see its 5 Confidential/AEO information, they should enter appearances as counsel, since they are both 6 attorneys. Bard has not cited any case law or authority prohibiting attorneys from acting as 7 technical advisors.”) (internal citation omitted)). 8 As noted, the Court’s discretion in discovery matters extends to crafting discovery orders 9 that may expand, limit, or differ from the relief requested. Crawford-El, 523 U.S. at 598. “To be 10 sure, Rule 26(c) confers broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective order is 11 appropriate and what degree of protection is required.” Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 12 20, 36 (1984). 13 The Court finds that neither Party’s proposed edits to the Model PO are adequate to 14 address both the concerns about access to confidential information by unknown attorneys and the 15 concerns about one side’s interfering with the other side’s selection of consultants to assist in pre- 16 trial and trial case preparation. Given the prevalence of patent lawsuits and other commercial 17 litigation involving highly confidential information in the Northern District of California, it is no 18 surprise that this dispute has arisen previously in this Court. In Apple v. Samsung, the litigants 19 proposed competing protective orders which treated consultants (and whether they were to be 20 identified) differently: 21 The main difference between the parties‘ proposals lies with the confidentiality 22 designation(s), for which Apple proposes a single-tier (“Highly Confidential– Attorneys' Eyes Only (“AEO”)”) and Samsung proposes two tiers (“Confidential” 23 and “Highly Confidential–AEO”). Apple's single-tier would allow disclosure of marked material to expert witnesses, including non-testifying experts and 24 consultants, only after the party seeking to disclose has provided notice and an opportunity to the other side to object and intercede. Apple argues that its PO is 25 consistent with the parties' practice thus far in this litigation and in concurrent litigation before the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), and thus averts the 26 risk of increased motion practice based on shifting to a two-tier structure. Samsung argues that rather than simply maintaining the status quo, the final PO should 27 balance the protections sought by both parties with the well-established practice of retaining undisclosed, non-testifying experts and consultants[.] 1 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., No. C 11-1846 LHK (PSG), 2012 WL 1511901, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2 Jan. 27, 2012). 3 The Apple opinion resolved that dispute by recognizing the difference between a non- 4 testifying consultant’s access to merely “Confidential Information” versus “Highly Confidential 5 Information” in the two-tier type of protective order. “In general, parties should be able to share 6 documents with their experts that, while confidential, do not qualify for ‘highly confidential’ 7 designation. In a two-tier system, this may be done without a party having to disclose the non- 8 testifying expert or consultant, secure the other side's approval, and run the risk of facing and 9 litigating objections.” Id. at *2. The Apple opinion reasoned that a two-tier approach to the 10 protective order “best addresses each side's legitimate concerns regarding confidentiality and 11 respects the role of non-testifying experts and consultants.” Id. The Apple opinion concluded that 12 “[s]o long as the material disclosed is merely ‘confidential’ and the nontestifying consultant agrees 13 to be bound by the provisions of the PO, the role of non-testifying experts and consultants may 14 remain unfettered by a requirement to seek permission for every confidentiality disclosure.” Id. 15 This approach respects the role that non-testifying consultants may play in supporting a 16 litigant, while balancing a designating party’s concerns about the disclosure of its highly 17 confidential documents and information. If a party desires to work with a consultant (or 18 consulting attorney) without identifying such person and without risking ancillary litigation over 19 objections to disclosure, under a two-tier protective order that party may disclose first level 20 “Confidential” materials to the consultant (as well as any public or non-confidential materials of 21 course) and thus have the flexibility to engage with that consultant anonymously. However, if a 22 party desires to disclose “Highly Confidential” materials to that non-testifying consultant, then the 23 Model Highly Confidential PO’s provisions for identification and objections (if any) from the 24 designating party prior to disclosure would apply. The choice of whether or not to disclose the 25 identity of the non-testifying consultant thus rests with the party working with their consultant. 26 Accordingly, the Court modifies the proposed Protective Order, first, by rejecting the edits 27 proposed by both Parties directed to this dispute over consulting attorneys (e.g., edits to 1 the Model Highly Confidential PO relevant to creating two tiers of confidentiality (“Confidential” 2 and “Highly Confidential”) and providing that disclosure of “Confidential” information to 3 consultants (which includes consulting attorneys) is allowed without identifying them, whereas 4 disclosure of “Highly Confidential” information to consultants (including consulting attorneys) is 5 subject to and may only be done after the identification and objection procedures in the Model 6 Highly Confidential PO. As noted above, the Court is separately issuing the final Protective Order 7 in this case, which reflects the Court’s resolution of these disputes as discussed herein. 8 The Court is cognizant that the Parties have already engaged in discovery and may have 9 designated materials as “Confidential” because both Parties’ proposed Protective Orders 10 contemplated a single-tier Protective Order. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that all materials 11 already produced in discovery which were previously designated as “Confidential” SHALL be 12 treated as “Highly Confidential” under the final Protective Order issued separately by the Court 13 unless such material is de-designated entirely or re-designated as merely “Confidential.” As the 14 Apple opinion recognized, “[t]he court does not view the entry of a two-tiered confidentiality 15 structure to require wholesale review of designations already made in the course of the litigation. 16 Rather, the party wishing to disclose the material to an expert or consultant must initiate a request 17 for de-designation or to lower the designation. The burden of establishing the propriety of any 18 confidentiality designation remains, however, with the party making the designation.” 2012 WL 19 1511901, at *2 n.2. 20 Secondary Disputes 21 State Farm has proposed several other changes to the Model PO which are unrelated to the 22 issue of consultants, for which Plaintiff has raised specific objections. 23 Timing of Confidentiality Designation of Deposition Testimony/Transcript 24 State Farm has proposed editing Paragraph 5.2(b) of the Model PO which requires a 25 designating party to identify on the record “before the close of the deposition, hearing, or other 26 proceeding” all testimony which is to be treated as confidential under the protective order. [Dkt. 27 61 at 5]. State Farm’s proposed edits would provide a thirty-day period after the receipt of the 1 as protected under the protective order, and also would allow a party to pre-designate an entire 2 deposition, hearing, or other proceeding’s transcript as protected under the protective order prior 3 to that deposition or hearing taking place. Id. 4 Plaintiff objects that these edits “demolish[]” the intent of the Model PO by extending the 5 deadline for designation far beyond the date of the deposition or hearing. [Dkt. 55 at 3]. Plaintiff 6 also objects that the proposal to pre-designate a transcript prior to the deposition or hearing even 7 taking place would allow proceedings to be treated as protected even where the content of the 8 transcript would not, in fact, meet the applicable standards for a confidentiality designation. Id. 9 A “party seeking to protect documents from the public must demonstrate good cause 10 exists.” Bayside Sols., 2022 WL 3215010, at *1 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 11 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003)). “For good cause to exist, the party seeking protection bears 12 the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” 13 Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210–11. It follows, therefore, that “[a] party seeking to deviate from the 14 [Northern District’s] model protective order bears the burden of showing the specific harm and 15 prejudice that will result if its request is not granted.” Hernandez, 2023 WL 2600452, at * 2. 16 State Farm’s letter brief does not seek to justify these proposed edits. Rather, as noted 17 above, State Farm devotes the vast bulk of its briefing to the “consulting attorney” issue and a 18 highly granular discussion of Mr. Schaffer and proceedings in other, unrelated litigation matters 19 which do not involve Plaintiff or her counsel. None of that briefing explains why State Farm 20 seeks to deviate from the timing and procedural provisions in the Model PO for designating 21 transcripts as containing protected materials. By its lack of briefing on this issue, State Farm has 22 failed to demonstrate any harm or prejudice that would result if these proposed edits to the Model 23 PO are not granted, much less any specific harm or prejudice. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 24 State Farm’s requests to edit these portions of the Model PO. The Court’s resolution of this issue 25 is reflected in the final Protective Order issued separately on the docket. 26 Existence of Protected Materials 27 State Farm has proposed an additional paragraph to Section 7.1 of the Model PO which 1 and in particular includes language stating that merely “making reference to the existence . . . of 2 documents produced subject to this Protective Order” would constitute a “use” of such 3 confidential information (and thus would be limited to only such “use” in this litigation). [Dkt. 61 4 at 7]. 5 Plaintiff contends that this proposed edit would amount to a “gag order.” [Dkt. 55 at 3]. 6 She argues that prohibiting her from acknowledging even the mere existence (as opposed to the 7 contents) of protected materials is unprecedented. Id. 8 As with the proposed edits above regarding deposition transcripts, State Farm’s briefing 9 does not even address these proposed edits specifically. The Model PO already requires that “[a] 10 Receiving Party may use Protected Material that is disclosed or produced by another Party or by a 11 Non-Party in connection with this case only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle this 12 litigation.” Model PO at ¶ 7.1. 13 State Farm has failed to demonstrate any specific harm or prejudice that would result if 14 these proposed edits to the Model PO are not granted. State Farm’s extensive arguments about 15 third parties who may have used State Farm confidential information (either by compiling lists of 16 State Farm confidential documents or posting such compilation publicly on a blog) are unrelated 17 to the Parties and lawyers here. Certainly, State Farm has the ability to file appropriate motions 18 for relief or take other appropriate action if a recipient of protected materials in this action violates 19 the basic principles of the Model PO and uses any protected material in a manner that is not for 20 prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle this litigation. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 21 State Farm’s requests to edit this section of the Model PO. The Court’s resolution of this issue is 22 reflected in the final Protective Order issued separately on the docket. 23 Persons Who Previously Possessed or Knew Confidential Information 24 State Farm has proposed an edit to Section 7.3(g) of the Model PO which adds the term 25 “lawfully” to this provision, such that confidential information under the protective order may be 26 disclosed to “the author or recipient of a document containing the information or a custodian or 27 other person who otherwise lawfully possessed or knew the information[.]” [Dkt. 61 at 9 1 only “lawfully” possessed or knew the information prior to such disclosure, as opposed to persons 2 who merely possessed or knew the information prior to disclosure in this case. 3 Plaintiff objects that State Farm’s proposed edit would require her “to perform the 4 impossible task of determining whether ‘the author or recipient of a document containing the 5 information’ not only possessed or knew the information, but ‘lawfully possessed or knew it.’” 6 [Dkt. 55 at 3]. Plaintiff argues that State Farm effectively wants her “to act as its police force as to 7 this issue.” Id. She argues that she “has neither the duty nor the ability to determine how 8 information possessed or known by such individuals may have been obtained, and she should not 9 be burdened with undertaking that investigation.” Id. 10 As with the proposed edits above regarding deposition transcripts, State Farm’s briefing 11 does not even address this proposed edit specifically. As noted, the Model PO provides for 12 disclosure of protected materials to a person who possessed or knew the information previously, 13 presumably for the common sense reason that someone who previously possessed or knew the 14 information already has or had knowledge of it and thus further disclosure to such person does 15 nothing to disseminate the confidential information beyond the scope of its prior disclosure. 16 Model PO at ¶ 7.2(g). 17 As with the proposed edits discussed above, State Farm has failed to demonstrate any 18 specific harm or prejudice that would result if these proposed edits to the Model PO are not 19 granted. State Farm’s extensive arguments about third parties who may or may not have complied 20 with protective orders in other cases are unrelated to the Parties and lawyers here. As Plaintiff 21 notes, “[i]f State Farm has evidence that anyone has unlawfully obtained its confidential 22 information, it has the ability to pursue appropriate remedies against them.” [Dkt. 55 at 3]. Tong, 23 discussed above, indicates that State Farm knows how to take actions against third-party attorneys 24 such as Mr. Schaffer, for example. To be sure, nothing in this Order (or the final Protective Order) 25 prevents State Farm from filing appropriate motions for relief or from taking other appropriate 26 action if a person has unlawfully possessed or come to know State Farm’s confidential 27 information. Accordingly, the Court DENIES State Farm’s requests to edit this section of the 1 separately on the docket. 2 Miscellaneous Issues 3 Finally, State Farm has proposed a handful of other edits to the Model PO for which the 4 Parties devote no substantive briefing. For example, State Farm has inserted the word 5 “reasonable” in Paragraph 6.2 to modify the “opportunity” a designating party has to review 6 material for which a confidentiality designation is challenged. Id. at 6. Further, State Farm has 7 (without explanation) inserted a proposed new Section 7.2 which expands the definition of 8 permissible “uses” of confidential information by State Farm. [Dkt. 61 at 8]. Similarly, State 9 Farm has proposed an edit to introductory language to Section 7.3 referencing the persons 10 authorized to receive confidential information without any explanation as to why these edits are 11 necessary or make any substantive difference. Id. Additionally, State Farm has proposed adding a 12 paragraph to the end of the Model PO which refers to the Court’s continuing jurisdiction over 13 disputes regarding disclosure, return, or destruction of protected material after final disposition of 14 this case, again without any briefing to explain why this edit is necessary or what the specific 15 harm would be if rejected. Id. at 13. 16 In the redline comments to the jointly submitted proposed Protective Order, Plaintiff has 17 indicated her objection to all or portions of each of these miscellaneous proposed edits. As noted, 18 “[a] party seeking to deviate from the [Northern District’s] model protective order bears the 19 burden of showing the specific harm and prejudice that will result if its request is not granted.” 20 Hernandez, 2023 WL 2600452, at * 2. Here, these miscellaneous edits proposed by State Farm 21 are not supported by any discussion of specific harms or prejudice which requires their adoption. 22 None of these appear to be related to the “consulting attorney” or other issues discussed above. 23 Because Plaintiff objects to these proposed changes, State Farm bears the burden to identify the 24 specific harm and specific prejudice absent the adoption of these proposed edits, and plainly, State 25 Farm’s silence on these edits constitutes a failure to meet that burden here. Accordingly, the Court 26 DENIES these miscellaneous edits to the Model PO proposed by State Farm. The Court’s 27 resolution of this issue is reflected in the final Protective Order issued separately on the docket. 1 Parties specifically identify in their redline comments as agreeable to both sides. See, e.g., Dkt. 61 2 at 1, 3. Based on those express agreements, the Court adopts those edits in the final Protective 3 Order being issued separately. 4 The Court also notes that there are a handful of edits proposed by State Farm which, unlike 5 the redline edits discussed above, have no express indication in the redline comments as to 6 whether Plaintiff objects or agrees to their inclusion. For example, State Farm has proposed an 7 edit to Paragraphs 5.2(a) and 5.2(c) which would alter the specific language to be affixed to a 8 document to designate that document as confidential without explanation as to why this proposed 9 edit makes a substantive difference. Id. at 4-5. Similarly, State Farm has inserted the phrase “or 10 unintentional” in Paragraph 5.3 of the Model PO without any explanation and without any 11 indication as to Plaintiff’s objection or agreement to this insertion. Id. at 5. Additionally, State 12 Farm has added categories of persons to whom confidential information may be disclosed to 13 include “law enforcement officers,” jurors, and any other persons required by law or authorized 14 specifically by the Parties. Id. at 9. 15 The Court notes that the Order which instructed the Parties to jointly submit the redlined 16 proposed Protective Order (see attached Appendix) required the Parties to “submit a joint 17 proposed protective order (including a Word version) which (1) incorporates all edits to the Model 18 Protective Order from both sides for which there are no objections from the other side, and (2) for 19 those remaining proposed edits from each side for which there are objections remaining, sets forth 20 each side's competing proposed language clearly identifying the Party proposing each such 21 competing proposal (and, if a Party contends that an edit should not be added, a statement to that 22 effect without argument) in the appropriate locations of the joint proposed order.” [Dkt. 64]. For 23 these handful of edits, there is no “statement” as to whether “a Party contends that an edit should 24 not be added.” Unlike the expressly objected to or expressly agreed upon edits, there are simply 25 no comments or statements in either the redline or the briefing as to these handful of edits. 26 Accordingly, the Court construes these uncommented edits as proposals “for which there are no 27 objections from the other side.” The Court thus GRANTS the unopposed insertion of these ] the final Protective Order issued separately on the docket. 2 Unripe Issues 3 The Parties devote substantial portions of their briefing on several issues unrelated to the 4 || Protective Order, which are neither germane to the disputes here nor ripe for adjudication. For 5 example, the issue of whether Plaintiff timely produced a video in discovery is unrelated to the 6 || specific disputes under the Protective Order. Further, because the Parties admit that Plaintiff 7 || produced that video, there appears to be no live discovery dispute as to that issue. To the extent 8 || that these and other irrelevant issues were mentioned in the briefing, the Court DENIES any 9 || requested relief as to such issues as premature. 10 CONCLUSION 11 Accordingly, for all the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and 12 || DENIES-IN-PART the Parties’ motion requesting modifications to the Model PO. Accordingly, 13 || the Court hereby ORDERS that the final version of the Protective Order reflecting the resolution 14 || of the disputes as discussed herein SHALL be entered on the docket as a standalone Order. 3 15 This RESOLVES Dkts. 55, 60, and 61. 16 17 || ITIS SO ORDERED. Z 18 Dated: December 15, 2025 19 □ 20 United States Manistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 APPENDIX 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 DEBRA COHEN TUDOR, CASE NO. 5:22-cv-01113-RFL 4 Plaintiff, 5 [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER 6 7 8 S C D T O O A M E T S P E A 1 v F s N th . A Y r R o , u M a g n h G I 5 l E l 0 D i N n , e o i E f n i e R s c n l c A d u o a s L r i n p v I t o e s N r . , a S t U io R n A ; a N n C d E ( P B r a o s t e ed ct i o v n e t O he r d N e o r r s) t h ern District’s Model 9 10 PROTECTIVE ORDER 11 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 12 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of 13 confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 14 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, 15 the following protective order is warranted. This Order does not confer blanket protections on all 16 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 17 use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under 18 the applicable legal principles. As set forth in Section 12.3, below, this Protective Order does not 19 entitle the parties to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 20 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 21 permission from the court to file material under seal. C be o e m n r m ev e is n e t d e t d o r [ e J f R le 1 ct ] m : F in o o r r e , a n s o e n o -s f u r b e s fe ta r n en ti c v e e , r t e h v is i s p io a n ra s g , r t a o p w h h h i a c s h the parties agree. 22 2. DEFINITIONS 23 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 24 information or items under this Order. 25 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is 26 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of 27 Civil Procedure 26(c). 28 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well 2145596 - 1 - [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER - CASE NO. 5:22-cv-01113-RFL 1 as their support staff). 2 2.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it 3 produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 4 2.5 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 5 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, 6 testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 7 responses to discovery in this matter. 8 2.6 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to 9 the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a 10 consultant in this action. The term “Expert” does not include consulting attorneys who are not 11 attorneys of record in this action. C Pl o a m int m iff e o n p t p e o d se s [ J th R i 2 s a ]: d d S i t t a io te n . F arm proposes this addition. 12 2.7 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. House 13 Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 14 2.8 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal 15 entity not named as a Party to this action. 16 2.9 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this 17 action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this action 18 on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party. C Pl o a m int m iff e o n p t p e o d se s [ J th R i 3 s d ]: e l S e t t a io te n . F arm proposes this deletion. 19 2.10 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, 20 consultants (but not consulting attorneys), retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and C Pl o a m int m iff e o n p t p e o d se s [ J th R i 4 s a ]: d d S i t t a io te n . F arm proposes this addition. 21 their support staffs). 22 2.11 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery 23 Material in this action. 24 2.12 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services 25 (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, 26 storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium, etc.) and their employees and subcontractors. 27 2.13 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as 28 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2145596 - 2 - [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER - CASE NO. 5:22-cv-01113-RFL 1 2.14 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a 2 Producing Party. 3 3. SCOPE 4 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material C to o “ m sti m pu e la n ti t o e n d ” h [J a R ve 5 b ] e : e F n o r r e e m a o se v e o d f p re u f r e s r u e a n n c t e t , o a t l h l e fu p r a th rt e i r e s re ’ ferences agreement. 5 (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all 6 copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, 7 conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 8 However, the protections conferred by this Order do not cover the following information: (a) any 9 information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a Receiving Party or becomes 10 part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as a result of publication not 11 involving a violation of this Order, including becoming part of the public record through trial or 12 otherwise; and (b) any information known to the Receiving Party prior to the disclosure or obtained 13 by the Receiving Party after the disclosure from a source who obtained the information lawfully 14 and under no obligation of confidentiality to the Designating Party. Any use of Protected Material 15 at trial shall be governed by a separate agreement or order. 16 4. DURATION 17 Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by this 18 Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order 19 otherwise directs. Final disposition shall be deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and 20 defenses in this action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the completion 21 and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this action, including the 22 time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to applicable law. 23 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 24 5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection. Each Party or 25 Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under this Order must take care to 26 limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards. The 27 Designating Party must designate for protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or 28 oral or written communications that qualify – so that other portions of the material, documents, 2145596 - 3 - [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER - CASE NO. 5:22-cv-01113-RFL 1 items, or communications for which protection is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within 2 the ambit of this Order. 3 Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. Designations that are shown 4 to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily 5 encumber or retard the case development process or to impose unnecessary expenses and burdens 6 on other parties) expose the Designating Party to sanctions. 7 If it comes to a Designating Party’s attention that information or items that it designated for 8 protection do not qualify for protection, that Designating Party must promptly notify all other 9 Parties that it is withdrawing the mistaken designation. 10 5.2 Manner and Timing of Designations. Except as otherwise provided in this Order 11 (see, e.g., second paragraph of section 5.2(a) below), or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, 12 Disclosure or Discovery Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so 13 designated before the material is disclosed or produced. 14 Designation in conformity with this Order requires: 15 (a) for information in documentary form (e.g., paper or electronic documents, but 16 excluding transcripts of depositions or other pretrial or trial proceedings), that the Producing Party 17 affix the legend “CONFIDENTIAL Pursuant to Protective Order” to each page that contains 18 protected material. If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, 19 the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 20 markings in the margins). 21 A Party or Non-Party that makes original documents or materials available for inspection 22 need not designate them for protection until after the inspecting Party has indicated which material 23 it would like copied and produced. During the inspection and before the designation, all of the 24 material made available for inspection shall be deemed “CONFIDENTIAL.” After the inspecting 25 Party has identified the documents it wants copied and produced, the Producing Party must 26 determine which documents, or portions thereof, qualify for protection under this Order. Then, 27 before producing the specified documents, the Producing Party must affix the “CONFIDENTIAL” 28 legend to each page that contains Protected Material. If only a portion or portions of the material on 2145596 - 4 - [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER - CASE NO. 5:22-cv-01113-RFL 1 a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 2 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 3 (b) for testimony given in deposition or in other pretrial or trial proceedings, that the 4 Designating Party identify on the record, before the close of the deposition, hearing, or other 5 proceeding, all protected testimony or by written notice of counsel no later than thirty (30) days 6 after receipt of the transcript of said deposition, hearing or other proceeding, all protected 7 testimony. All testimony, regardless of whether designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” on the record, 8 shall be treated as “CONFIDENTIAL” until thirty (30) days after receipt of the transcript of said 9 deposition, hearing or other proceeding by all parties. Certain depositions, hearings or other 10 proceedings may, in their entirety, be designated “CONFIDENTIAL” prior to being taken because 11 of the anticipated testimony. Furthermore, any document designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” shall 12 maintain that designation and the protections afforded thereto if introduced or discussed during a 13 deposition, hearing or other proceeding. C Pl o a m int m iff e o n p t p e o d se s [ J th R i 6 s a ]: d d S i t t a io te n . F arm proposes this addition. 14 (c) for information produced in some form other than documentary and for any 15 other tangible items, that the Producing Party affix in a prominent place on the exterior of the 16 container or containers in which the information or item is stored the legend “CONFIDENTIAL 17 Produced Pursuant to Protective Order” or Confidential Trade Secret Produced Pursuant to 18 Protective Order” and/or alter the file name of the native ESI to include “CONFIDENTIAL” and 19 shall inform all recipients in writing of the designation at the time that the ESI is produced. If only a 20 portion or portions of the information or item warrant protection, the Producing Party, to the extent 21 practicable, shall identify the protected portion(s). 22 5.3 Inadvertent Failures to Designate. If timely corrected, an inadvertent or 23 unintentional failure to designate qualified information or items does not, standing alone, waive the 24 Designating Party’s right to secure protection under this Order for such material. Upon timely 25 correction of a designation, the Receiving Party must make reasonable efforts to assure that the 26 material is treated in accordance with the provisions of this Order. 27 6. CHALLENGING CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS 28 2145596 - 5 - [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER - CASE NO. 5:22-cv-01113-RFL 1 6.1 Timing of Challenges. Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of 2 confidentiality at any time. Unless a prompt challenge to a Designating Party’s confidentiality 3 designation is necessary to avoid foreseeable, substantial unfairness, unnecessary economic 4 burdens, or a significant disruption or delay of the litigation, a Party does not waive its right to 5 challenge a confidentiality designation by electing not to mount a challenge promptly after the 6 original designation is disclosed. 7 6.2 Meet and Confer. The Challenging Party shall initiate the dispute resolution process 8 by providing written notice of each designation it is challenging and describing the basis for each 9 challenge. To avoid ambiguity as to whether a challenge has been made, the written notice must 10 recite that the challenge to confidentiality is being made in accordance with this specific paragraph 11 of the Protective Order. The parties shall attempt to resolve each challenge in good faith and must 12 begin the process by conferring directly (in voice to voice dialogue; other forms of communication 13 are not sufficient) within 14 days of the date of service of notice. In conferring, the Challenging 14 Party must explain the basis for its belief that the confidentiality designation was not proper and 15 must give the Designating Party a reasonable opportunity to review the designated material, to C Pl o a m int m iff e o n p t p e o d se s [ J th R i 7 s a ]: d d S i t t a io te n . F arm proposes this addition. 16 reconsider the circumstances, and, if no change in designation is offered, to explain the basis for the 17 chosen designation. A Challenging Party may proceed to the next stage of the challenge process 18 only if it has engaged in this meet and confer process first or establishes that the Designating Party 19 is unwilling to participate in the meet and confer process in a timely manner. 20 6.3 Judicial Intervention. If the Parties cannot resolve a challenge without court 21 intervention, the Designating Party shall file and serve a motion to retain confidentiality under Civil 22 Local Rule 7 (and in compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5, if applicable) within 21 days of the 23 initial notice of challenge or within 14 days of the parties agreeing that the meet and confer process 24 will not resolve their dispute, whichever is earlier. Each such motion must be accompanied by a 25 competent declaration affirming that the movant has complied with the meet and confer 26 requirements imposed in the preceding paragraph. Failure by the Designating Party to make such a 27 motion including the required declaration within 21 days (or 14 days, if applicable) shall 28 automatically waive the confidentiality designation for each challenged designation. In addition, the 2145596 - 6 - [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER - CASE NO. 5:22-cv-01113-RFL 1 Challenging Party may file a motion challenging a confidentiality designation at any time if there is 2 good cause for doing so, including a challenge to the designation of a deposition transcript or any 3 portions thereof. Any motion brought pursuant to this provision must be accompanied by a 4 competent declaration affirming that the movant has complied with the meet and confer 5 requirements imposed by the preceding paragraph. 6 The burden of persuasion in any such challenge proceeding shall be on the Designating 7 Party. Frivolous challenges, and those made for an improper purpose (e.g., to harass or impose 8 unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) may expose the Challenging Party to sanctions. 9 Unless the Designating Party has waived the confidentiality designation by failing to file a motion 10 to retain confidentiality as described above, all parties shall continue to afford the material in 11 question the level of protection to which it is entitled under the Producing Party’s designation until 12 the court rules on the challenge. 13 7. ACCESS TO AND USE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL 14 7.1 Basic Principles. A Receiving Party may use Protected Material that is disclosed or 15 produced by another Party or by a Non-Party in connection with this case only for prosecuting, 16 defending, or attempting to settle this litigation. Such Protected Material may be disclosed only to 17 the categories of persons and under the conditions described in this Order. When the litigation has 18 been terminated, a Receiving Party must comply with the provisions of section 13 below (FINAL 19 DISPOSITION). 20 Protected Material must be stored and maintained by a Receiving Party at a location and in a 21 secure manner that ensures that access is limited to the persons authorized under this Order. 22 Use of Confidential Information and/or Trade Secret Information subject to this Protective 23 Order includes reviewing, analyzing, relying on, or making reference to the existence or contents of 24 documents produced subject to this Protective Order, including the titles of documents produced 25 pursuant to this Protective Order, or Bates ranges of documents produced pursuant to this Protective 26 Order. Use also includes the scanning, storing and searching of Confidential Information and/or 27 Trade Secret Information. Any and all such uses of Confidential Information and/or Trade Secret 28 Information subject to this Protective Order shall be limited to this litigation only. C Pl o a m int m iff e o n p t p e o d se s [ J th R i 8 s a ]: d d S i t t a io te n . F arm proposes this addition. 2145596 - 7 - [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER - CASE NO. 5:22-cv-01113-RFL 1 7.2 Use by State Farm. Nothing in this Protective Order disallows State Farm from: 2 (a) complying with any state or federal law or regulation, including reporting of 3 information to a regulator or government entity as permitted and/or required by applicable state and 4 federal law; 5 (b) adding information discovered that is relevant to a claim to the relevant 6 electronic record in its electronic claim system; 7 (c) disclosing evidence of a crime or fraud; retaining information necessary to meet 8 mandated retention requirements; or, 9 (d) retaining copies of Protected Information that may exist on back-up media or 10 other computer or archive storage not regularly accessed by business users in the ordinary course 11 Provided that should a copy of the Confidential Information be accessed it will not be used for a 12 purpose inconsistent with this Order. C Pl o a m int m iff e o n p t p e o d se s [ J th R i 9 s a ]: d d S i t t a io te n . F arm proposes this addition. 13 7.3 Disclosure of “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items. Unless otherwise ordered 14 by the court or permitted in writing by the Designating Party, a Receiving Party may disclose any 15 information or item designated “CONFIDENTIAL” only to the following persons listed in 16 subparagraphs a-k below. The only authorized persons are: C Pl o a m int m iff e o n p t p e o d se s [ J th R i 1 s a 0 d ] d : it S io ta n t . e Farm proposes this addition. 17 (a) the Receiving Party’s Outside Counsel of Record in this action, as well as 18 employees of said Outside Counsel of Record to whom it is reasonably necessary to disclose the 19 information for this litigation and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be 20 Bound” that is attached hereto as Exhibit A; 21 (b) the officers, directors, and employees (including House Counsel) of the 22 Receiving Party to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation and who have signed 23 the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A); 24 (c) Consultants/Experts (as defined in this Order, of the Receiving Party to whom 25 disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation and who have signed the “Acknowledgment 26 and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A); 27 (d) the court and its personnel; 28 (e) court reporters and their staff, professional jury or trial consultants, mock jurors, 2145596 - 8 - [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER - CASE NO. 5:22-cv-01113-RFL 1 and Professional Vendors to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation and who 2 have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A); 3 (f) during their depositions, witnesses in the action to whom disclosure is reasonably 4 necessary and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A), 5 unless otherwise agreed by the Designating Party or ordered by the court. Pages of transcribed 6 deposition testimony or exhibits to depositions that reveal Protected Material must be separately 7 bound by the court reporter and may not be disclosed to anyone except as permitted under this 8 Protective Order. 9 (g) the author or recipient of a document containing the information or a custodian 10 or other person who otherwise lawfully possessed or knew the information. C Pl o a m int m iff e o n p t p e o d se s [ J th R i 1 s a 1 d ] d : it S io ta n t . e Farm proposes this addition. 11 (h) law enforcement officers, and/or other government agencies, as permitted or 12 required by applicable state and federal law. 13 (i) a jury involved in litigation concerning the claims and any defenses to any claims 14 in this lawsuit. 15 (j) anyone as otherwise required by law. 16 (k) as authorized by the Parties’ specifically. 17 7.4 The Parties Agree and Understand that the Designating Party is entitled to know 18 with whom information or items designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” have been shared. As such, 19 within 7 days after any individual sigs “Exhibit A” to this Protective Order, and at least 7 days 20 before any Confidential Information is disclosed to that individual, notice of the planned disclosure 21 and a copy of that Exhibit shall be provided to the Designating Party. C Pl o a m int m iff e o n p t p e o d se s [ J th R i 1 s a 2 d ] d : it S io ta n t . e Farm proposes this addition. 22 8. PROTECTED MATERIAL SUBPOENAED OR ORDERED PRODUCED IN OTHER 23 LITIGATION 24 If a Party is served with a subpoena or a court order issued in other litigation that compels 25 disclosure of any information or items designated in this action as “CONFIDENTIAL,” that Party 26 must: 27 (a) promptly notify in writing the Designating Party. Such notification shall include 28 a copy of the subpoena or court order; 2145596 - 9 - [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER - CASE NO. 5:22-cv-01113-RFL 1 (b) promptly notify in writing the party who caused the subpoena or order to issue in 2 the other litigation that some or all of the material covered by the subpoena or order is subject to 3 this Protective Order. Such notification shall include a copy of this Protective Order; and 4 (c) cooperate with respect to all reasonable procedures sought to be pursued by the 5 Designating Party whose Protected Material may be affected. 6 If the Designating Party timely seeks a protective order, the Party served with the subpoena 7 or court order shall not produce any information designated in this action as “CONFIDENTIAL” 8 before a determination by the court from which the subpoena or order issued, unless the Party has 9 obtained the Designating Party’s permission. The Designating Party shall bear the burden and 10 expense of seeking protection in that court of its confidential material – and nothing in these 11 provisions should be construed as authorizing or encouraging a Receiving Party in this action to 12 disobey a lawful directive from another court. 13 9. A NON-PARTY’S PROTECTED MATERIAL SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED IN THIS LITIGATION 14 (a) The terms of this Order are applicable to information produced by a Non-Party in this 15 action and designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” Such information produced by Non-Parties in 16 connection with this litigation is protected by the remedies and relief provided by this Order. 17 Nothing in these provisions should be construed as prohibiting a Non-Party from seeking additional 18 protections. 19 (b) In the event that a Party is required, by a valid discovery request, to produce a Non- 20 Party’s confidential information in its possession, and the Party is subject to an agreement with the 21 Non-Party not to produce the Non-Party’s confidential information, then the Party shall: 22 (1) promptly notify in writing the Requesting Party and the Non-Party that some or 23 all of the information requested is subject to a confidentiality agreement with a Non-Party; 24 (2) promptly provide the Non-Party with a copy of the Protective Order in this 25 litigation, the relevant discovery request(s), and a reasonably specific description of the information 26 requested; and 27 (3) make the information requested available for inspection by the Non-Party. 28 2145596 - 10 - [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER - CASE NO. 5:22-cv-01113-RFL 1 (c) If the Non-Party fails to object or seek a protective order from this court within 14 days 2 of receiving the notice and accompanying information, the Receiving Party may produce the Non- 3 Party’s confidential information responsive to the discovery request. If the Non-Party timely seeks a 4 protective order, the Receiving Party shall not produce any information in its possession or control 5 that is subject to the confidentiality agreement with the Non-Party before a determination by the 6 court. Absent a court order to the contrary, the Non-Party shall bear the burden and expense of 7 seeking protection in this court of its Protected Material. 8 10. UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL 9 If a Receiving Party learns that, by inadvertence or otherwise, it has disclosed Protected 10 Material to any person or in any circumstance not authorized under this Protective Order, the 11 Receiving Party must immediately (a) notify in writing the Designating Party of the unauthorized 12 disclosures, (b) use its best efforts to retrieve all unauthorized copies of the Protected Material, (c) 13 inform the person or persons to whom unauthorized disclosures were made of all the terms of this 14 Order, and (d) request such person or persons to execute the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to 15 Be Bound” that is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 16 11. INADVERTENT PRODUCTION OF PRIVILEGED OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED MATERIAL 17 When a Producing Party gives notice to Receiving Parties that certain inadvertently 18 produced material is subject to a claim of privilege or other protection, the obligations of the 19 Receiving Parties are those set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B). This provision 20 is not intended to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that 21 provides for production without prior privilege review. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) 22 and (e), insofar as the parties reach an agreement on the effect of disclosure of a communication or 23 information covered by the attorney-client privilege or work product protection, the parties may 24 incorporate their agreement in a stipulated protective order submitted to the court. 25 12. MISCELLANEOUS 26 12.1 Right to Further Relief. Nothing in this Order abridges the right of any person to 27 seek its modification by the court in the future. 28 2145596 - 11 - [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER - CASE NO. 5:22-cv-01113-RFL 1 12.2 Right to Assert Other Objections. No Party waives any right it otherwise would have 2 to object to disclosing or producing any information or item on any ground not addressed in this 3 Protective Order. Similarly, no Party waives any right to object on any ground to use in evidence of 4 any of the material covered by this Protective Order. 5 12.3 Filing Protected Material. Without written permission from the Designating Party or 6 a court order secured after appropriate notice to all interested persons, a Party may not file in the 7 public record in this action any Protected Material. A Party that seeks to file under seal any 8 Protected Material must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. Protected Material may only be filed 9 under seal pursuant to a court order authorizing the sealing of the specific Protected Material at 10 issue. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, a sealing order will issue only upon a request establishing 11 that the Protected Material at issue is privileged, protectable as a trade secret, or otherwise entitled 12 to protection under the law. If a Receiving Party's request to file Protected Material under seal 13 pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5 is denied by the court, then the Receiving Party may file the 14 information in the public record pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5 unless otherwise instructed by 15 the court. 16 13. FINAL DISPOSITION 17 Within 60 days after the final disposition of this action, as defined in paragraph 4, each 18 Receiving Party must return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy such material. 19 As used in this subdivision, “all Protected Material” includes all copies, abstracts, compilations, 20 summaries, and any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material. Whether 21 the Protected Material is returned or destroyed, the Receiving Party must submit a written 22 certification to the Producing Party (and, if not the same person or entity, to the Designating Party) 23 by the 60 day deadline that (1) identifies (by category, where appropriate) all the Protected Material 24 that was returned or destroyed and (2) affirms that the Receiving Party has not retained any copies, 25 abstracts, compilations, summaries or any other format reproducing or capturing any of the 26 Protected Material. Notwithstanding this provision, Counsel are entitled to retain an archival copy 27 of all pleadings, motion papers, trial, deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal memoranda, 28 correspondence, deposition and trial exhibits, expert reports, attorney work product, and consultant 2145596 - 12 - [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER - CASE NO. 5:22-cv-01113-RFL 1 and expert work product, even if such materials contain Protected Material. Any such archival 2 copies that contain or constitute Protected Material remain subject to this Protective Order as set 3 forth in Section 4 (DURATION). 4 In the event a dispute arises regarding the disclosure, return, or destruction of Protected 5 Material, this Court shall have jurisdiction over such dispute, even after final disposition of this 6 litigation as set forth in Section 4 (DURATION). C Pl o a m int m iff e o n p t p e o d se s [ J th R i 1 s a 3 d ] d : it S io ta n t . e Farm proposes this addition. 7 Dated: October 10, 2025 BMCA LAW GROUP, A P.C. 8 By 9 BRUCE M. COHEN JULIA MACHAI COHEN 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff DEBRA COHEN TUDOR 11 12 Dated: October 10, 2025 HAYES SCOTT BONINO 13 ELLINGSON & GUSLANI LLP 14 By /S/ Stephen P. Ellingson 15 STEPHEN M. HAYES STEPHEN P. ELLINGSON 16 JAMIE A. RADACK Attorneys for Defendant 17 STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 DATED: ______________, 2025 _____________________________________ HONORABLE RITA F. LIN 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2145596 - 13 - [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER - CASE NO. 5:22-cv-01113-RFL 1 EXHIBIT A 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND 3 I, _____________________________ [print or type full name], of _________________ 4 [print or type full address], declare under penalty of perjury that I have read in its entirety and 5 understand the Protective Order that was issued by the United States District Court for the Northern 6 District of California on [date] in the case of ___________ [insert formal name of the case and the 7 number and initials assigned to it by the court]. I agree to comply with and to be bound by all the 8 terms of this Protective Order and I understand and acknowledge that failure to so comply could 9 expose me to sanctions and punishment in the nature of contempt. I solemnly promise that I will not 10 disclose in any manner any information or item that is subject to this Protective Order to any person 11 or entity except in strict compliance with the provisions of this Order. 12 I further agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the 13 Northern District of California for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this Protective Order, even 14 if such enforcement proceedings occur after termination of this action. 15 I hereby appoint __________________________ [print or type full name] of 16 _______________________________________ [print or type full address and telephone number] 17 as my California agent for service of process in connection with this action or any proceedings 18 related to enforcement of this Protective Order. 19 20 Date: ______________________________________ 21 City and State where sworn and signed: _________________________________ 22 23 Printed name: _______________________________ 24 25 Signature: __________________________________ 26 27 28 2145596 - 14 - [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER - CASE NO. 5:22-cv-01113-RFL