Becky Crespo v. Target Corporation

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER (Dkt. No. 15 ) by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal. The Court has received and considered the parties' "Stipulated Protective Order" (the "Proposed Order"). (Dkt. No. 15 ). The Court cannot adopt the Proposed Order as drafted by the parties. The parties may submit a revised proposed stipulated protective order, but must correct the following deficiencies. (See document for further details). (mr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BECKY CRESPO,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case No. CV 16-6317 MWF (SS)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:

v.

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
(Dkt. No. 15)

TARGET CORPORATION, et al.

15

Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20
21

The Court has received and considered the parties’ “Stipulated
Protective Order” (the “Proposed Order”).

(Dkt. No. 15).

The

Court cannot adopt the Proposed Order as drafted by the parties.
The parties may submit a revised proposed stipulated protective
order, but must correct the following deficiencies.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

First,

the

Proposed

statement of good cause.

Order

fails

to

include

an

(Proposed Order at 1-2, ¶1-2).

adequate
The Court

may only enter a protective order upon a showing of good cause.
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th
Cir. 2006) (parties must make a “particularized showing” under Rule

1

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

2

order); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-12 (9th

3

Cir. 2002) (Rule 26(c) requires a showing of good cause for a

4

protective order); Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187

5

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

6

require good cause showing).

7
8

In any revised proposed stipulated protective order submitted

9

to the Court, the parties must include a statement demonstrating

10

good cause for entry of a protective order pertaining to the

11

documents or information described in the order.

12

containing the statement of good cause should be preceded by a

13

heading

14

articulate, for each document or category of documents they seek

15

to protect, the specific prejudice or harm that will result if no

16

protective order is entered. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130 (citations

17

omitted).

stating:

“GOOD

CAUSE

STATEMENT.”

The paragraph

The

parties

shall

18
19

Second, the Proposed Order is overbroad.

(Proposed Order at

20

2, ¶ 2).

A protective order must be narrowly tailored and cannot

21

be overbroad.

Therefore, the documents, information, items or

22

materials

that

are

23

described

in

24

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

25

Here,

26

Confidential

27

confidential subject to the terms of this Order by marking such

28

materials (‘Confidential’).”

the

a

subject

meaningful

parties

define

Material

to

the

and

protective

specific

confidential

produced

or

filed

order

fashion

(for

information
in

this

shall

example

as

“any

Lawsuit

(Proposed Order at 2, ¶ 2).
2

be

as

This

1

definition does not clearly place the parties or the Court on

2

notice of the specific documents covered by the Proposed Order.

3

such, the definition is overbroad.

4

protective order must be particularly defined and described.

5

parties may submit a revised proposed stipulated protective order,

6

but must correct this deficiency.

As

The documents subject to a
The

7
8

In the alternative, if the parties seek a “blanket” protective

9

order, as opposed to an order protecting individually-identified

10

documents, the stipulation must state the justification for this

11

type of protective order.

12

& Smith, Inc., 712 F.3d 1349, 1352 n.1 (9th Cir. 2013) (defining a

13

“blanket” protective order as an order that is obtained without

14

“making a particularized showing of good cause with respect to any

15

individual document”) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

16

Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1138 (9th Cir. 2003)); Perry v. Brown, 667 F.3d

17

1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2012) (blanket protective orders often cover

18

materials that would not qualify for protection if subjected to

19

individualized analysis).

See Blum v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner

20
21

Third, a protective order may not bind the Court.

22

Order at 2, ¶ 4).

23

(Proposed

Any revised proposed stipulated protective order

may not include language that binds the Court.

24
25

Fourth, parties must follow procedures from Local Rule 79 for

26

submitting confidential information to the court.

(Proposed Order

27

at 3-4, ¶ 9-10).

28

designated “CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER”

The Court cannot agree that all documents

3

1

shall be filed under seal.

2

included in any papers to be filed in Court, such papers shall be

3

accompanied by an application pursuant to Local Rule 79, to file

4

the papers – or the confidential portion thereof – under seal.

5

application shall be directed to the judge to whom the papers are

6

directed. Pending the ruling on the application, the papers or

7

portions thereof subject to the sealing applications shall be

8

lodged under seal.

(Id.).

If confidential material is

The

9
10

Fifth, the Court will not agree to have any of its personnel

11

be bound by the terms of a protective order.

12

4, ¶10).

13

prospective stipulated protective order that obligates the Court

14

to

15

documents.

16

the parties should delete all references to the “Clerk of the

17

Court” or any other court personnel.

act

(Proposed Order at

The parties should not include any language in a revised

in

a

certain

manner

in

relation

to

the

confidential

If the parties choose to submit a revised stipulation,

18
19

Finally, the Court will not agree to the procedures the

20

parties propose in the event of a dispute regarding the designation

21

of confidential information.

22

In the event of a dispute regarding the designation of confidential

23

information, the procedure for obtaining a decision from the Court

24

is that set forth in Local Rule 37.

25

the Joint Stipulation required by Local Rule 37 under seal, the

26

parties may file a stipulation to that effect or the moving party

27

may file an ex parte application making the appropriate request.

28

The parties must set forth good cause in the stipulation or ex

(Proposed Order at 4-5, ¶ 12, 15).

4

If the parties want to file

1

parte application as to why the Joint Stipulation or portions

2

thereof should be filed under seal.

3
4

All future discovery documents shall include the following in

5

the caption: “[Discovery Document: Referred to Magistrate Judge

6

Suzanne

7

http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov)

8

regarding protective orders and a sample protective order.

9

information is available in Judge Segal’s section of the link

H.

Segal].”

The

Court’s

contains

website

additional

(see

guidance
This

10

marked “Judges’ Procedures & Schedules.”

The parties may submit a

11

revised Stipulation and [Proposed] Protective Order for the Court’s

12

consideration.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

DATED:

April 13, 2017

17
/S/
__________
SUZANNE H. SEGAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5