Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Clara Yeung sued Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Doe defendants in the Central District of California, alleging that she sustained personal injuries while deplaning a Delta flight. The case is at the discovery stage, and the order does not address liability, injury, or damages. The parties signed a stipulation on October 15, 2026, asking the court to enter a protective order.
The stipulation's good cause statement says discovery is likely to involve nonpublic information, including Delta's private services agreement with JFK International Air Terminal LLC, Delta's policies, procedures, and training materials on inspection and maintenance of passenger boarding bridges, and personal, medical, employment, and contact information about the plaintiff, passengers, and nonparties. These are the parties' representations about anticipated discovery, not findings about any specific document. The parties acknowledged that the order gives no blanket protection, reaches only material that qualifies under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and does not authorize sealed filings, which remain governed by Civil Local Rule 79-5.
The Court’s Holding
On October 19, 2026, Magistrate Judge Michael B. Kaufman granted the stipulated protective order in a one-sentence ruling stating that, having considered the papers, good cause exists. The ruling is an interlocutory discovery order; it resolves no claim and is not a final judgment. The court made no document-specific findings, and nothing in it decides whether any particular item is in fact confidential.
The order protects only material designated CONFIDENTIAL in good faith, and it extends to copies, summaries, and testimony that would reveal that material. Designating parties must limit designations to qualifying material; mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited and may draw sanctions. Challenges proceed under Local Rule 37-1 as modified by Judge Kaufman's procedures. The designating party bears the burden of persuasion, and the material stays protected until the court rules. Protected material may be used only to prosecute, defend, or attempt to settle this action.
Disclosure is limited to listed recipients, including outside counsel, party personnel with a need to know, retained experts who sign the acknowledgment in Exhibit A, the court, court reporters, vendors and consultants who sign, authors and custodians, deposition witnesses under specified conditions, and agreed mediators. Artificial intelligence or document analysis services may be used if protected by contractual or technical safeguards and by terms barring use of the material to train models. Those services need not sign Exhibit A, and the party using them remains responsible for compliance. Rule 502(d) language provides that disclosure of privileged or work-product material does not waive protection in this or any other federal or state proceeding. Within 60 days of a written request after final disposition, receiving parties must return or destroy protected material and certify that they have done so, though counsel may keep archival copies that remain subject to the order. Violations may be punished through contempt or monetary sanctions.
Key Takeaways
- The ruling is a stipulated, interlocutory discovery order based on a general good-cause finding, not a ruling that any specific document is confidential.
- Parties may not designate material for tactical purposes, and unjustified or mass designations can expose the designating party to sanctions, while frivolous or improper challenges can expose the challenger to sanctions.
- The order does not authorize filing under seal; a party must obtain a separate court order under Civil Local Rule 79-5 with a good-cause showing.
- The order does not govern use of protected material at trial, and a party seeking continued protection for trial must ask the trial judge in advance.
- AI and document analysis tools are permitted only with confidentiality protections and a bar on model training, and the order does not extend any discovery deadline or excuse production of responsive material.
Why It Matters
Stipulated protective orders are routine, so the value of this one lies in how it allocates burdens and defers harder questions. The designating party must justify confidentiality if challenged, and sealing and trial use are reserved for later rulings under the standards the order cites, including Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, which distinguishes good cause for discovery material from the compelling reasons needed for merits-related court records.
Its express treatment of artificial intelligence services is a practical drafting feature. What remains open is whether any designation will be challenged, whether sealing will be sought, and how confidentiality will be handled at trial.