Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Brendan Ngehsi Newanforbi, proceeding in propria persona, filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Shannon Smith, LCSW, and HOPE Psychotherapy, Inc., doing business as HOPE Program. The defendants are represented by Sims, Lawrence & Broghammer. The nature of the underlying claims is not described in the protective order document.
The parties stipulated to a protective order to govern disclosure and discovery activity likely to involve confidential, proprietary, or private information. They acknowledged the order does not confer blanket protection and that Civil Local Rule 79-5 governs any request to file confidential material under seal. The stipulation was signed by the plaintiff on October 14, 2026, and by defense counsel on the same date.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros entered the stipulated protective order on October 20, 2026. The order defines "CONFIDENTIAL" information as material qualifying for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). It establishes detailed procedures for designating protected material, including requirements to mark each page of documents and identify protected portions, and to designate protected testimony on the record during depositions. Mass or indiscriminate designations are prohibited and may expose the designating party to sanctions.
The order sets a meet-and-confer process for challenging confidentiality designations, requiring voice-to-voice dialogue within 14 days of written notice. If unresolved, the designating party must file a motion to retain confidentiality within 21 days of the initial challenge notice, accompanied by a declaration of compliance with meet-and-confer requirements. Failure to file such a motion automatically waives the confidentiality designation. Protected material may be disclosed only to specified categories of persons—including outside counsel, party employees, experts, court personnel, court reporters, and witnesses—who have signed an Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound (Exhibit A). The order also addresses subpoenas in other litigation, non-party protected material, inadvertent disclosure, and inadvertent production of privileged material under Rule 26(b)(5)(B) and Federal Rule of Evidence 502.
The protective order remains in effect after final disposition until a designating party agrees in writing or a court orders otherwise. Final disposition is defined as the later of dismissal of all claims or final judgment after exhaustion of all appeals. Within 60 days of final disposition, each receiving party must return or destroy all protected material and submit a written certification identifying the material returned or destroyed and affirming no copies have been retained. Counsel and self-represented parties may retain an archival copy of pleadings, motion papers, transcripts, exhibits, expert reports, and work product, which remain subject to the order.
Key Takeaways
- The court entered a comprehensive stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery material in a federal civil action.
- Confidentiality designations must be specific and made in good faith; mass or routinized designations are prohibited and sanctionable.
- A structured challenge process requires a meet-and-confer in voice-to-voice dialogue before judicial intervention, with automatic waiver if the designating party fails to move to retain confidentiality within 21 days.
- Protected material may only be used for prosecuting, defending, or settling the litigation and disclosed to authorized recipients who have signed the Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound.
- Receiving parties must return or destroy protected material within 60 days of final disposition, though counsel may retain an archival copy subject to the order's continuing confidentiality obligations.
Why It Matters
This stipulated protective order reflects standard federal practice for managing confidential discovery in civil litigation, balancing the need for information exchange with privacy and proprietary interests. Its detailed designation, challenge, and enforcement mechanisms—including automatic waiver for untimely motions and mandatory certification of destruction—provide a clear framework that reduces disputes and ensures compliance. The order's incorporation of Rule 26(b)(5)(B) and Rule 502 procedures for inadvertent privilege waiver aligns with modern e-discovery practices. The requirement for voice-to-voice meet-and-confer conferences promotes good-faith resolution of confidentiality disputes before burdening the court.