Rosalinda Lynd v. Closetmaid Corporation
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) RE: STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato re Stipulation for Protective Order 13 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 16-1111-JGB (KKx)
Date: September 22, 2016
Title: Rosalinda Lynd v. Closetmaid Corporation
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. 13]
The parties’ proposed Stipulation and Protective Order has been referred by the District
Judge to the Magistrate Judge for consideration. ECF Docket (“Dkt.”) 13. 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 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.
Proposed ¶ 6 needs to be revised to make clear that any motion challenging a
party’s designation of material as Confidential Information or seeking to modify or amend the
proposed Protective Order must be brought in strict compliance with Local Rules 37-1 and 37-2
(including the Joint Stipulation requirement). Additionally, proposed ¶ 6 must be revised to
Page 1 of 2
Initials of Deputy Clerk __
make clear that any challenges to a designation of confidentiality may be made at any time that is
consistent with the Court’s Scheduling Order.
The heading of proposed ¶ 8 appears to include additional language rendering it
fatally ambiguous and needs to be revised.
The proposed Protective Order should not prohibit disclosure to any mediators
and settlement officers, and their supporting personnel, mutually agreed upon by any of the
parties engaged in settlement discussions. Additionally, proposed ¶ 7.2 needs to be revised to
make clear that court reporters employed by the court, and their staff, are not required to sign the
“Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A).
Proposed ¶ 11 needs to be revised to include the following language: “This
provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery
order that provides for production without prior privilege review. Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Evidence 502(d) and (e), insofar as the parties reach an agreement on the effect of disclosure of a
communication or information covered by the attorney-client privilege or work product
protection, the parties may incorporate their agreement in the stipulated protective order
submitted to the court.”
Proposed ¶ 1 needs to be revised to include the following language: “The parties
further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order
does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth
the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks
permission from the court to file material under seal.” Additionally, proposed ¶ 12.3 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 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
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?