Angel Lomeli v. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato re Stipulation for Protective Order 14 The parties are advised that the Court declinesto issue the proposed protective order to which they have stipulated.. (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS) (dts)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EDCV 17-146-FMO (KKx)
Date: May 11, 2017
Title: Angel Lomeli v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al.
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. 14]
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. Proposed ¶ III needs to be
revised 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 ¶¶ VI and XI need to be revised to make clear that any motion to retain
confidentiality, challenging a party’s designation of material as Confidential Information, to
compel production of allegedly privileged and/or work product material, 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 ¶ VI must be
Page 1 of 2
Initials of Deputy Clerk __
revised to 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.
Proposed ¶ VII needs to be revised to permit disclosure of Protected Material to
any mediators and settlement officers, and their supporting personnel, mutually agreed upon by
any of the parties engaged in settlement discussions.
Proposed ¶ XI needs to be revised to include the following language: “When a
Producing Party gives notice to Receiving Parties that certain inadvertently produced material is
subject to a claim of privilege or other protection, the obligations of the Receiving Parties are
those set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B). 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 ¶ XII(C) 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 parties must lodge a proposed Order and include a signature block for the
assigned 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 Fernando M. Olguin
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?