Carol Tounget v. Valley-Wide Recreation and Park District
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato re Stipulation for Protective Order 37 . 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
EDCV 16-88-JGB (KKx)
Date: April 16, 2018
Title: Carol Tounget v. Valley-Wide Recreation and Park District
Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):
Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):
Order re: Stipulated Protective Order [Dkt. 37]
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:
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. Any use of Protected Material at trial or other court hearings
or proceedings shall be governed by the orders of the trial judge. The stipulation should,
thus, include language to make this explicit.
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, who are subject only to the Court’s internal
procedures regarding the handling of material filed or lodged, including material filed or lodged
Proposed ¶¶ 4, 7, and 8 need to be revised to make clear that any motion
challenging a party’s designation of material as Confidential Information or seeking to enforce,
modify, or amend the proposed Protective Order must be brought in strict compliance with Local
Page 1 of 2
Initials of Deputy Clerk __
Rules 37-1 and 37-2 (including the Joint Stipulation requirement) and within any applicable
deadlines set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order(s).
Proposed ¶ 5 needs to be revised to make clear a Party that seeks to file under seal
any Protected Material must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. Protected Material may only be
filed under seal pursuant to a court order authorizing the sealing of the specific Protected
Material at issue. If a Party’s request to file Protected Material under seal is denied by the court,
then the Receiving Party may file the information in the public record unless otherwise instructed
by the court.
The Protective Order shall unequivocally state that nothing in the protective order
shall be construed as authorizing a party to disobey a lawful subpoena or court order issued in
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.
United States District Judge Jesus G. Bernal
Page 2 of 2
Initials of Deputy Clerk __
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?