Charlie Lincoln et al v. Lowe's Companies Inc et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: PARTIES' STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER OPINION by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal. (See Order for details.) 18 (afe)

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

CHARLIE LINCOLN; MARK LINCOLN
)
and CHARLIE LINCOLN AS EXECUTOR )
OF THE ESTATE OF BRIAN LINCOLN, )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
LOWE’S COMPANIES, INC.; LOWE’S
)
HIW, INC.; LOWE’S MANAGEMENT
)
SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1
)
through 150, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

NO. CV 10-1840 VBF (SSx)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: PARTIES’
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

18
19

The Court has received and considered the parties’ “Protective

20

Order” (the “Protective Order”).

The Court is unable to adopt the

21

Protective Order as stipulated to by the parties for the following

22

reasons:

23
24

First, the Protective Order does not establish the requisite good
Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir., as

25

cause.

26

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

27

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

28

being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6
7

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

8

cause.

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

cause for a protective order);

13

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

14

require good cause showing).

Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc.,

15
16

In any revised stipulated protective order submitted to the Court,

17

the parties must include a statement demonstrating good cause for entry

18

of a protective order pertaining to the documents or information

19

described in the order.

20

specifically described and identified.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

will result if no protective order is entered. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130.

The documents to be protected shall be
The paragraph containing the

25
26

Second, the Court will not agree to the procedure the parties

27

propose for revocation and modification of

28

(Protective Order at 4, ¶ 6).

the

Protective

Order.

Before seeking court intervention in any
2

1

discovery matter, the parties must strictly comply with the Central

2

District’s Local Rule 37. Both parties must timely file a written joint

3

stipulation containing all issues in dispute.

4

2.1.

5

out in Local Rules 37-2.1 and 37-2.2. C.D. Cal. R. 37-2.1, 37-2.2. The

6

Court will not consider the dispute unless the stipulation or a

7

declaration from the moving party describing how the opposing party

8

failed to cooperate in formulating the stipulation is timely filed. See

9

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

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

The form and preparation of this stipulation are expressly laid

10
11

Third, the Court will not agree to the procedure the parties

12

propose for filing documents under seal.

(Protective Order at 3, ¶ 5).

13

Instead, the parties must strictly comply with the Central District’s

14

Local Rule 79-5.

15

must file an application with the Court pursuant to Local Rule 79-5.1.

16

Local Rules 79-5.2 and 79-5.3 govern the disclosure of confidential

17

court records and Local Rule 79-5.4 sets out the parties’ responsibility

18

to redact or exclude personal identifiers.

If a party wishes to file a document under seal, they

19
20

Fourth, the Court reminds the parties that all future discovery

21

documents filed with the Court shall include the following in the

22

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

23

Segal].”

24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 29, 2011

/S/
______________________________
SUZANNE H. SEGAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
3