B. Aronson Inc. et al v. Bradshaw International, Inc. et al

Filing 58

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: PARTIES' STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal; The Court is unable to adopt the Protective Order as stipulated to by the parties for the following reasons: First, a protective order must be na rrowly tailored and cannot be overbroad. Second, the Protective Order does not establish the requisite good cause. Third, the Court reminds the parties that all future discovery documents filed with the Court shall include the following in the caption: [Discovery Document: Referred to Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal]. Finally, the Court notes that its website contains additional guidance regarding protective orders. IT IS SO ORDERED. See order for details. (jy)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10

B. ARONSON, INC., ET AL.,

11

Plaintiffs,

12
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.
BRADSHAW INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
ET AL.,

14
Defendants.
15

NO. CV 11-00531 CAS (SSx)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: PARTIES’
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

16
17

The Court has received and considered the parties’ “[Proposed]

18

Stipulated Protective Order” (the “Protective Order”).

The Court is

19

unable to adopt the Protective Order as stipulated to by the parties for

20

the following reasons:

21
22

First, a protective order must be narrowly tailored and cannot be

23

overbroad.

24

that are subject to the protective order shall be described in a

25

meaningful and specific fashion (for example, “personnel records,”

26

“medical records,” or “financial information,” etc.). Here, the parties

27

define confidential information as "information which has not been made

28

public

and

Therefore, the documents, information, items or materials

which

concerns

or

relates

to

the

Parties'

business

1

practices."

(Protective Order at 2, ¶ 3).

This definition could

2

arguably include every item of information generated by either party,

3

if they have not provided such information to the public.

4

definition is overbroad.

5

protective order, but must correct this deficiency.

As such, the

The parties may submit a revised stipulated

6
7

Second, the Protective Order does not establish the requisite good

8

cause.

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir., as

9

amended 2010) (“The relevant standard [for the entry of a protective

10

order] is whether good cause exists to protect the information from

11

being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery

12

against the need for confidentiality.” (internal quotation marks and

13

alteration omitted)); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d

14

1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (court’s protective order analysis requires

15

examination of good cause (citing Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307

16

F.3d 1206, 1210-11, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002)).

17
18

The Court may only enter a protective order upon a showing of good

19

cause.

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176

20

(9th Cir. 2006) (stipulating to protective order insufficient to make

21

particularized showing of good cause, as required by Rule 26(c));

22

Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210-11 (Rule 26(c) requires a showing of good

23

cause for a protective order);

24

187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders

25

require good cause showing).

Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc.,

26
27

In any revised stipulated protective order submitted to the Court,

28

the parties must include a statement demonstrating good cause for entry
2

1

of a protective order pertaining to the documents or information

2

described in the order.

3

specifically described and identified.

4

statement of good cause should be preceded by the phrase: “GOOD CAUSE

5

STATEMENT.” The parties shall articulate, for each document or category

6

of documents they seek to protect, the specific prejudice or harm that

7

will result from the disclosure of those particular documents if no

8

protective order is entered.

The documents to be protected shall be
The paragraph containing the

Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130.

9
10

Third, the Court reminds the parties that all future discovery

11

documents filed with the Court shall include the following in the

12

caption: “[Discovery Document: Referred to Magistrate Judge Suzanne H.

13

Segal].”

14
15

Finally, the Court notes that its website contains additional

16

guidance regarding protective orders. This information is available in

17

Judge

18

Schedules.” (See http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/JudgeReq.nsf/2fb08

19

0863c88ab47882567c9007fa070/0141b1bcd8ee7f8488256bbb00542959?OpenDocu

20

ment).

Segal’s

section

of

the

link

marked

“Judges

Procedures

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25
26
27

DATED: November 2, 2011
/S/
______________________________
SUZANNE H. SEGAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
3

&