David Powell, Sr. et al v. City of Barstow et al

Filing 29

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato re Stipulation for Protective Order 28 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 16-1472-JGB (KKx)

Date: January 18, 2017

Title: David Powell, Sr., et al. v. City of Barstow, et al.

Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEB TAYLOR

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

Order re: Stipulated Protective Order [Dkt. 28]

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.
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.
2.
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
under seal.
3.
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.

Page 1 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

4.
Proposed ¶¶ 8, 13, and 14 need 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).
5.
The proposed Protective Order 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.
6.
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
another action.
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:

United States District Judge Jesus G. Bernal

Page 2 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __