McAleenan

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 JANE DOE 1, et al., Case No. 18-cv-02349-BLF (VKD)

9 Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE

10 v. DEFENDANTS’ CONFIDENTIAL AND

HC-AEO DESIGNATIONS

11 CHAD F. WOLF, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 306 Defendants. 12

13 14 The parties dispute whether certain documents and deposition testimony defendants 15 produced in discovery are properly designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – 16 Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the protective order entered in this case (Dkt. No. 256). Dkt. No. 17 306. The Court reviewed all disputed documents and testimony in camera and held a hearing on 18 the matter on April 7, 2020. Dkt. No. 316. 19 The Court concludes that some of defendants’ confidentiality designations are warranted at 20 least for purposes of discovery, but that others do not warrant that designation. The attached 21 Appendices A-C summarize the Court’s decisions as to each disputed item. The Court sets forth 22 its…