Barbara Buckland et al v. Maxim Healthcare Services Inc

Filing 54

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: PARTIES' STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal; First, a protective order must be narrowly tailored and cannot be overbroad. Second, the Court cannot agree that material filed in this action w ill be designated by counsel as SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER, (Protective Order at 11, 15), because this designation might suggest that the Court has made a determination about whether particular material fits within the categories described by a Protective Order entered in this case. Third, the Court cannot agree to the procedure the parties propose for the filing of documents under seal. See order for further details. (jy)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

BARBARA BUCKLAND,
individually, ANNA MARIE
STEWART, individually, CARMEN
PETERS, individually, BRIAN
PIAZZA, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the
general public similarly
situated,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., )
a Maryland corporation; and DOES )
1 through 100, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

NO. CV 11-08414-GW (SSx)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: PARTIES’
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

20
21

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

22

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

The Court is

23

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

24

the following reasons:

25
26

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

27

overbroad.

Therefore, the documents, information, items or materials

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

define confidential information as "any non-public Material that such

4

persons produce in the course of Litigation that such Producing Person

5

believes in good faith to contain Confidential Material.”

6

Order at 3, ¶ 6).

7

information generated by either party, if they have not provided such

8

information to the public.

9

parties may submit a revised stipulated protective order, but must

10

(Protective

This definition could arguably include every item of

As such, the definition is overbroad.

The

correct this deficiency.

11
12

Second, the Court cannot agree that material filed in this action

13

will

be

designated

by

counsel

as

“SUBJECT

TO

PROTECTIVE

ORDER,”

14

(Protective Order at 11, ¶ 15), because this designation might suggest

15

that the Court has made a determination about whether particular

16

material fits within the categories described by a Protective Order

17

entered in this case.

18

confidential, they can mark documents “confidential” but should not

19

indicate that the Court has also reached a decision about the nature of

20

the documents.

If the parties wish to designate material as

21
22

Third, the Court cannot agree to the procedure the parties propose

23

for the filing of documents under seal. (Protective Order at 11, ¶ 15;

24

15, ¶ 19(c)).

25

must

26

confidential material is included in any documents to be filed in Court,

27

such documents shall be accompanied by an application, pursuant to Local

28

Rule 79-5.1, to file the documents – or the confidential portion thereof

comply

The filing and disclosure of confidential court records
with

the

Central

District’s

2

Local

Rule

79-5.

If

1

– under seal.

The application shall be directed to the judge to whom

2

the documents are directed.

3

documents or portions thereof subject to the sealing application shall

4

be lodged under seal.

5

disclosure of confidential court records and Local Rule 79-5.4 sets out

6

the parties’ responsibility to redact or exclude personal identifiers.

Pending the ruling on the application, the

Local Rules 79-5.2 and 79-5.3 govern the

7
8
9

Finally, the proposed Protective Order fails to include an adequate
statement of good cause.

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331

10

F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (court’s protective order analysis

11

requires examination of good cause) (citing Phillips v. Gen. Motors

12

Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002); San Jose Mercury

13

News, Inc. v. United States Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir.

14

1999); Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th

15

Cir. 1992).

16
17

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

18

cause.

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

19

(9th Cir. 2006) (parties must make a “particularized showing” under Rule

20

26(c)’s good cause showing for court to enter protective order);

21

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

22

cause for a protective order);

23

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

24

require good cause showing).

Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc.,

25
26
27
28
3

1

In any revised stipulated protective order submitted to the Court,

2

the parties must include a statement demonstrating good cause for entry

3

of a protective order pertaining to the documents or information

4

described in the order.

5

cause should be preceded by a heading stating: “GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT.”

6

The parties shall articulate, for each document or category of documents

7

they seek to protect, the specific prejudice or harm that will result

8

if no protective order is entered.

9

omitted).

10

The paragraph containing the statement of good

Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130 (citations

The parties may submit a revised Stipulation and [Proposed]

Protective Order for the Court’s consideration.

11
12

Finally, the Court reminds the parties that all future discovery

13

documents filed with the Court shall include the following in the

14

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

15

Segal].”

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20
21
22

DATED: February 8, 2011
/S/
______________________________
SUZANNE H. SEGAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
4