Roberta Nolan v. Saybrook University et al

Filing 35

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) RE: PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato re Stipulation for Protective Order 33 The parties are advised that the Court declines to issue the proposed protective order to which they have stipulated (See Order for details) (dts)

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

Case No. EDCV 15-00290-JGB (KKx)

Date: March 3, 2016

Title: Roberta Nolan v. Saybrook University, et al.
DOCKET ENTRY
PRESENT:

HON. KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Deb 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 that
the Court declines to issue the proposed protective order to which they have
stipulated for the following reasons:

1.

The stipulation needs to be revised to make clear that the terms of
the Protective Order do not apply to the Court and court
personnel, including court reporters and their staff, 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.

2.

The parties shall include a statement 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.

3.

Proposed ¶ 6.2 needs to be revised to make clear that any motion
challenging a party’s designation of material as Confidential
Information must be brought in strict compliance with Local Rules
37-1 and 37-2 (including the Joint Stipulation requirement).
Reference in proposed ¶ 6.2 to Local Rule 79-5 appears to be

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk dts

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES--GENERAL
Case No.: EDCV 15-00290-JGB (KKx)
Roberta Nolan v. Saybrook University, et al.

March 4, 2016
Page 2

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

unnecessary and confusingly duplicative of proposed ¶ 12.3 and
should be removed.
4.

Proposed ¶¶ 7.3 and 7.4 should be removed because they appear
to be unnecessary and confusingly duplicative of proposed ¶ 12.3.

5.

Proposed ¶ 14 should be revised to delete the following sentence:
“However, any application or motion seeking contempt or
injunctive relief must be presented to the District Judge.”

6.

The signature block for the judge in the proposed Order needs to
be changed to the signature block for the Magistrate Judge.

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. The parties are strongly encouraged to use the language
contained in the approved stipulated protective order.

cc:

District Judge Jesus G. Bernal

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk dts