Pecover et al v. Electronic Arts Inc., No. 4:2008cv02820 - Document 289 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 284 Stipulation Supplementing Stipulated Protective Order Regarding Confidentiality of Non-Party NFL Players Documents and Materials. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/2/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2011)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pecover et al v. Electronic Arts Inc. 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 Doc. 289 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION GEOFFREY PECOVER and ANDREW OWENS, on behalf of themselves and a class of persons similarly situated, Case No. 08-CV-02820 CW Plaintiffs, v. ELECTRONIC ARTS INC., a Delaware corporation, et al., Defendants. STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SUPPLEMENTING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY OF NON-PARTY NFL PLAYERS’ DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS In order to protect confidential information obtained from non-party National Football League Players Incorporated (“NFL Players”) in connection with the above-captioned action, Plaintiffs and Defendant Electronic Arts, Inc. (“EA,” and collectively with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. This stipulation supplements the Stipulated Protective Order Regarding Confidentiality of Documents and Materials that was So Ordered by the Court in the abovecaptioned action on January 20, 2009 (“Protective Order”). See ECF No. 32. STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 08-CV-02820 CW Dockets.Justia.com 2. 1 In addition to the provisions and protections contained in the Protective 2 Order, the following shall apply to documents and information produced by NFL Players in 3 connection with this action. 3. 4 NFL Players may designate any materials, including interrogatory 5 responses, other discovery responses, or transcripts, as “Confidential – Outside Counsel Only” if 6 it reasonably and in good faith believes that such document contains confidential information so 7 commercially sensitive that the protections afforded by the Protective Order are insufficient to 8 adequately protect the interests of NFL Players. 4. 9 The Parties acknowledge and agree that examples of an appropriate 10 “Confidential – Outside Counsel Only” designation include internal NFL Players 11 communications discussing the negotiation of the terms of licensing agreements between NFL 12 Players and EA, as well as the terms of licensing agreements between NFL Players and licensees 13 other than EA. 5. 14 Except as expressly provided below, any document produced by NFL 15 Players and designated “Confidential – Outside Counsel Only” may be used only for purposes of 16 this action and shall not be given, shown, made available or communicated in any way to anyone 17 except: 18 a. the Court, court personnel and court reporters; 19 b. outside litigation counsel of record to the Parties, including the 20 legal associates and clerical or other support staff who are 21 employed by such counsel and are working under the express 22 direction of such counsel; 23 c. court reporters who record deposition or other testimony in the litigation; 24 25 d. consultants or experts retained by the Parties; 26 e. any person who is indicated on the face of a document to have 27 been an author, addressee or copy recipient thereof; 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 08-CV-02820 CW -2- f. 1 any person whom NFL Players agrees to in writing prior to any such disclosure. 2 g. 3 persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., 4 photocopying; videotaping; translating; preparing exhibits or 5 demonstrations; organizing, storing, retrieving data in any form or 6 medium; etc.) and their employees and subcontractors 7 6. Counsel for the Parties shall obtain from all persons who are given access 8 to any documents produced by NFL Players, including documents designated “Confidential – 9 Outside Counsel Only,” written acknowledgement that such persons have read, understand, and 10 will comply with the terms of the Protective Order and this stipulation supplementing the 11 Protective Order. 12 7. In the event that a party deems it necessary to disclose any document 13 designated as “Confidential – Outside Counsel Only” to any person not specified in Paragraph 5, 14 that party shall notify counsel for NFL Players in writing of: (i) the document it wishes to 15 disclose; and (ii) the persons to whom such disclosure is to be made. The proposed disclosure 16 shall not be made absent written permission from NFL Players, unless the party wishing to make 17 the disclosure obtains an order from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia 18 permitting the proposed disclosure. 19 8. Any document designated as “Confidential – Outside Counsel Only” that 20 is used in connection with any court proceeding shall not lose its outside counsel only status 21 through such use, and the parties shall take all steps reasonably required to protect its 22 confidentiality during such use, including the notice and filing under seal procedures provided in 23 paragraphs 13, 15, and 16 of the Protective Order. 24 9. The parties agree that any documents produced by NFL Players, however 25 designated, will be treated in accordance with the Protective Order and this stipulation 26 supplementing the Protective Order, and will not be shown or in any way provided to any third 27 party, including during the deposition of other third parties, unless the third party otherwise 28 satisfies an exception to gain access to such confidential information. STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 08-CV-02820 CW -3- 1 10. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall retain 2 jurisdiction over all disputes relating to any subpoena issued by that court to non-party NFL 3 Players, including the jurisdiction to resolve any motion for a protective order brought by NFL 4 Players pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c). 5 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 6 DATED: November 29, 2011 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 7 By 8 9 /s/ Shana E. Scarlett SHANA E. SCARLETT 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 shanas@hbsslaw.com 10 11 12 Stuart M. Paynter (226147) THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC 1200 G Street N.W., Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 626-4486 Facsimile: (866) 734-0622 stuart@smplegal.com 13 14 15 19 Steve W. Berman (Pro Hac Vice) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 steve@hbsslaw.com 20 Class Counsel 16 17 18 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 08-CV-02820 CW -4- 1 DATED: November 29, 2011 2 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP By 3 /s/ Timothy L. O’Mara TIMOTHY L. O’MARA 8 Daniel M. Wall (102580) Kirsten M. Ferguson (252781) 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 Facsimile: (415) 395-8095 tim.omara@lw.com dan.wall@lw.com kirsten.ferguson@lw.com 9 Attorneys for Defendant Electronic Arts Inc. 4 5 6 7 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 12/2/2011 DATED: _______________________ _______________________________ 14 The Honorable Claudia Wilken U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 08-CV-02820 CW -5- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 2 I hereby certify that on November 29, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing document 3 using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail addresses 4 registered in the CM/ECF system, as denoted on the Electronic Mail Notice List, and I hereby 5 certify that I have mailed a paper copy of the foregoing document via the United States Postal 6 7 Service to the non-CM/ECF participants indicated on the Manual Notice List generated by the CM/ECF system. 8 /s/ Shana E. Scarlett SHANA E. SCARLETT 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 08-CV-02820 CW -6-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
