Felix v. United States of America

Filing 20

ORDER that the parties Stipulated Protective Order Re: Nondisclosure of Confidential Information (Doc. 16) is rejected without prejudice to the filing of a revised stipulation and proposed form of protective order that complies with this Order. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 10/4/2011.(TCA)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10

Bobbi Lee Felix,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

vs.
United States of America,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-11-1203-PHX-PGR

ORDER

15
16

Pending before the Court is the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order Re:

17

Nondisclosure of Confidential Information (Doc. 16). While the Court is certainly

18

willing to issue a protective order in this action, the Court cannot accept the

19

parties’ proposed form of protective order as currently drafted.

20

First, pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 8 of the proposed protective order, only

21

the parties’ counsel will be permitted to exam confidential documents without the

22

necessity of signing a copy of the protective order. These provisions need to be

23

revise to exempt authorized Court personnel from that requirement.

24

Second, proposed paragraph 7 provides that “[a]ll portions of the

25

depositions, moving papers, or any other pre-trial written materials that refer to

26

confidential information shall be sealed by the Court to protect such information.”

1

This provision needs to be revised so that it complies with all of the sealing

2

procedures required by LRCiv 5.6, as well as any appropriate portions of section

3

II.J. of the Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Filing Administrative

4

Policies and Procedures Manual. The parties are advised that no document

5

submitted for filing will be sealed by the Court unless a properly supported motion

6

to seal that document is first filed and granted.1

7

Third, proposed paragraphs 9 and 10, which refer to the resolution of

8

disputes concerning the applicability of the protective order, need to be revised to

9

incorporate the Court’s requirement that no motion seeking a resolution of any

10

dispute concerning any production or designation of protected material or an

11

amendment of the protective order may be filed unless a statement of moving

12

counsel is attached thereto certifying that after personal consultation and sincere

13

efforts to do so, counsel have been unable to satisfactorily resolve the dispute.

14

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order

15

Re: Nondisclosure of Confidential Information (Doc. 16) is rejected without

16

prejudice to the filing of a revised stipulation and proposed form of protective

17

order that complies with this Order.

18

DATED this 4th day of October, 2011.

19
20
21
22
23
1

24
25
26

The parties are also advised that the Court’s normal practice when a
submitted document is permitted to be filed under seal is to require that a public
version of the same document also be filed that redacts only the specific
confidential information.
-2-