Laurie B LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: PARTIES' STIPULATION REGARDING PRESERVATION OF CONFIDENTIAL RESTRICTED INFORMATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal. (See document for details). (mr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAURIE B LLC,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

Case No. CV 14-03942 DMG (SSx)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:
PARTIES’ STIPLUATION REGARDING
PRESERVATION OF CONFIDENTIAL
RESTRICTED INFORMATION AND
[PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
The

20

Court

has

received

and

considered

the

parties’

21

“Stipulation Regarding Preservation of Confidential Information”

22

and

23

Order”).

24

stipulated to by the parties.

25

stipulated

26

deficiencies:

27

\\

28

\\

the

accompanying
The

Court

protective

Proposed
cannot

order,

Protective
adopt

the

Order

(“Protective

Protective

Order

as

The parties may submit a revised
but

must

correct

the

following

1

First, the proposed Protective Order fails to include an

2

adequate statement of good cause.

3

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (court’s protective

4

order

5

Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11, 1212 (9th

6

Cir. 2002)).

7

“particularized showing” of good cause in order for the Court

8

entry of a protective order.

9

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations

analysis

requires

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

examination

of

good

cause)

(citing

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) requires a

Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of

10

omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

There is no automatic

11

privilege to file documents under seal.

12

is a “strong presumption in favor of [public] access to court

13

records.”

To the contrary, there

Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135.

14
15

Moreover, a protective order should be narrowly tailored and

16

not overbroad.

17

n.3 (9th Cir. 2004) (disfavoring “overbroad” protective orders).

18

It is preferable to have the documents, information, items or

19

materials that are subject to the protective order described in a

20

meaningful

21

records,” “medical records,” “tax returns,” etc.).

and

See Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063

specific

fashion

(for

example,

“personnel

22
23

In any revised stipulated protective order submitted to the

24

Court, the parties should include a statement demonstrating good

25

cause for entry of a protective order pertaining to the specific

26

documents, materials, or information described in the order.

27

paragraph

28

preceded by the heading “GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT.”

containing

the

statement

2

of

good

cause

should

The
be

The Good Cause

1

Statement should be edited to discuss information that applies to

2

the instant case, including the specific harm or prejudice that

3

would

4

likely to be produced, assuming no protective order is entered.

5

See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130 (“A party asserting good cause bears

6

the burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect, of

7

showing

8

protective order is granted.”).

result

that

from

the

specific

disclosure

prejudice

of

or

confidential

harm

will

information

result

if

no

9
10

The Court cautions that any party seeking to file material

11

under seal must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and with any

12

pertinent

13

undersigned Magistrate Judge, including any procedures adopted

14

under the Pilot Project for the Electronic Submission and Filing

15

of Under Seal Documents.

16

confidential documents under seal, without Court approval.

17

Proosed Stip., ¶ 3).

18

Material under seal is denied by the Court, then the Receiving

19

Party

20

otherwise instructed by the court.

orders

may

file

of

the

the

assigned

District

Judge

and

the

Parties may not agree to file all
(See

If a Party's request to file Protected

information

in

the

public

record

unless

21
22
23

Second,

the

propose

Court
for

will

not

resolving

agree

to

alleged

the

procedures

24

parties

25

Protective Order.

26

intervention in any discovery matter, the parties must strictly

27

comply with the Central District’s Local Rule 37, including the

28

letter and meet and confer requirements set forth in Local Rule

(Prot. Order ¶ 14).

3

violations

of

the
the

Before seeking court

1

37-1.

2

containing all issues in dispute.

3

The Local Rules expressly set forth the form and preparation of

4

this kind of stipulation.

5

Court will not consider the motion unless the stipulation or a

6

declaration from the moving party, describing how the opposing

7

party

8

timely filed.

Both parties must timely file a written joint stipulation

failed

to

cooperate

C.D. Cal. L.R. 37-2, 37-2.1.

C.D. Cal. L.R. 37-2.1, 37-2.2.

in

formulating

the

stipulation,

The

is

See C.D. Cal. L.R. 37-2.4.

9
10

Third,

the

Court

reminds

the

Court

discovery

documents

12

following

in

13

that

“[Discovery

shall

all

future

Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal].”

caption:

with

parties

11

the

filed

the

Document:

include
Referred

the
to

14
15

Finally,

the

Court

guidance

notes

regarding

that

protective

its

website

orders

and

contains

16

additional

a

sample

17

protective order.

18

section of the link marked “Judges’ Procedures & Schedules.” (See

19

http://court.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/JudgeReq.nsf/FAQs+about+Judge

20

s%27+Procedures+and+Schedules?OpenView).

21

\\

22

\\

23

\\

24

\\

This information is available in Judge Segal’s

25
26
27
28
4

1
2

The parties may submit a revised Stipulation and [Proposed]
Protective Order for the Court’s consideration.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

DATED:

September 23, 2014

7
/S/
__________
SUZANNE H. SEGAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5