Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc. et al

Filing 24

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato re Stipulation for Protective Order 21 The parties are advised the Court declines to issue the proposed protective order to which they have stipulated (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS) The parties are further directed to the Courts sample stipulated protective order located on the Courts website for a sample of the format of an approved stipulated protective order. (dts)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES--GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 14-02094-VAP (KKx)

Date: June 9, 2015

Title: Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.,
et al.
DOCKET ENTRY
PRESENT:

HON. KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
D. Taylor
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:

None present

n/a
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

None present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS)

The parties’ proposed Stipulation and Protective Order has been referred by the
District Judge to the Magistrate Judge for consideration. The parties are advised the
Court declines to issue the proposed protective order to which they have stipulated
for the following reasons:
1.

The parties have not made a sufficient showing of good cause, as
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Such showing should be made
separate from the parties’ stipulation regarding the terms of the
proposed protective order. Paragraph 1 merely contains
conclusory statements with no specific information regarding why
a protective order is necessary in the instant action.

2.

While the Court is willing to enter a protective order in
accordance with the parties’ stipulation in order to facilitate the
conduct of discovery, the Court is unwilling to include in the
protective order any provisions relating to evidence presented at
trial or other court hearings or proceedings. That is a matter the
parties will need to take up with the judicial officer conducting the
proceeding at the appropriate time. The stipulation should, thus,
include language to make this explicit.

3.

The protective order needs to be revised to make clear that the

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk dts

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES--GENERAL
Case No.: EDCV 14-02094-VAP (KKx)
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v.
Electrolux Home Products, Inc., et al.

June 9, 2015
Page 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

terms of the Protective Order do not apply to the Court and court
personnel, who are subject only to the Court’s internal procedures
regarding the handling of material filed or lodged, including
material filed or lodged under seal.
4.

Proposed ¶¶ 6 and 12 need to be revised to make clear that any
motion challenging a designation of material as Confidential or
requesting a modification of the Protective Order will need to be
made in strict compliance with Local Rules 37-1 and 37-2
(including the Joint Stipulation requirement).

5.

The following provision needs to be added: “Nothing in this Order
is intended or should be construed as authorizing a party to
disobey a lawful subpoena issued in another action.”

6.

The signature block needs to be revised to reflect the assigned
Magistrate Judge to whom this matter has been referred.

The parties are further directed to the Court’s sample stipulated protective
order located on the Court’s website for a sample of the format of an approved
stipulated protective order.

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk dts