Fidelina Rangel v. Forest River, Inc., et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER (Dkt. No. 18 ) by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal. The Court has received and considered the parties' Stipulated Protective Order (the "Proposed Order"). (Dkt. No. 18 ). The Court cannot adopt the Proposed Order as drafted by the parties. The parties may submit a revised proposed stipulated protective order, but must correct the following deficiencies. (See document for further details). (mr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

FIDELINA RANGEL, as an
individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No. EDCV 17-0613 JFW (SS)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.

(Dkt. No. 18)

FOREST RIVER, INC., an Indiana
Corporation, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19

The Court has received and considered the parties’ Stipulated

20

Protective Order (the “Proposed Order”).

(Dkt. No. 18).

The Court

21

cannot adopt the Proposed Order as drafted by the parties.

22

parties may submit a revised proposed stipulated protective order,

23

but must correct the following deficiencies.

The

24
25

First,

the

Proposed

Order

fails

to

include

an

(Proposed Order at 1, ¶ 1-2).

adequate

26

statement of good cause.

The Court

27

may only enter a protective order upon a showing of good cause.

28

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th

1

Cir. 2006) (parties must make a “particularized showing” under Rule

2

26(c) for the court to enter protective order); Phillips v. Gen.

3

Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-12 (9th Cir. 2002) (Rule 26(c)

4

requires a showing of good cause for a protective order); Makar-

5

Wellbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis.

6

1999)

7

showing).

(even

stipulated

protective

orders

require

good

cause

8
9

In any revised proposed stipulated protective order submitted

10

to the Court, the parties must include a statement demonstrating

11

good cause for entry of a protective order pertaining to the

12

documents or information described in the order.

13

containing the statement of good cause should be preceded by a

14

heading

15

articulate, for each document or category of documents they seek

16

to protect, the specific prejudice or harm that will result if no

17

protective order is entered.

18

Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003).

stating:

“GOOD

CAUSE

STATEMENT.”

The paragraph

The

parties

shall

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

19
20

Second, the Proposed Order is overbroad.

(Proposed Order at

21

4, ¶ h).

A protective order must be narrowly tailored and cannot

22

be overbroad.

Therefore, the documents, information, items or

23

materials

that

are

24

described

in

25

“personnel records,” “medical records,” or “tax returns,” etc.).

26

Here, the parties define confidential information as “all originals

27

and copies of any document and/or information that any party has

28

designated as such by stamping or otherwise marking each page

a

subject

meaningful

to

the

and

protective

specific

2

order

fashion

(for

shall

be

example

1

‘CONFIDENTIAL.’”

2

the parties or the Court on notice of the specific documents covered

3

by the Proposed Order.

4

documents

5

defined and described.

6

stipulated protective order, but must correct this deficiency.

subject

(Id.).

to

This definition does not clearly place

As such, the definition is overbroad.
a

protective

order

must

be

The

particularly

The parties may submit a revised proposed

7
8

In the alternative, if the parties seek a “blanket” protective

9

order, as opposed to an order protecting individually-identified

10

documents, the stipulation must state the justification for this

11

type of protective order.

12

& Smith, Inc., 712 F.3d 1349, 1352 n.1 (9th Cir. 2013) (defining a

13

“blanket” protective order as an order that is obtained without

14

“making a particularized showing of good cause with respect to any

15

individual document”) (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138); Perry v.

16

Brown, 667 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2012) (blanket protective

17

orders often cover materials that would not qualify for protection

18

if subjected to individualized analysis).

See Blum v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner

19
20

Third, a protective order may not bind the Court or its

21

personnel.

(Proposed Order at 4, ¶ 5).

Any revised proposed

22

stipulated protective order may not include language that binds

23

the Court or obligates Court personnel to act in a certain manner

24

in relation to confidential documents.

25
26

Fourth, the Court will not agree to the procedures the parties

27

propose in the event of a dispute regarding the designation of

28

confidential information.

(Proposed Order at 5, ¶ 1–2).
3

In the

1

event

of

a

dispute

regarding

the

designation

of

confidential

2

information, the procedure for obtaining a decision from the Court

3

is that set forth in Local Rule 37.

4

the Joint Stipulation required by Local Rule 37 under seal, the

5

parties may file a stipulation to that effect or the moving party

6

may file an ex parte application making the appropriate request.

7

The parties must set forth good cause in the stipulation or ex

8

parte application as to why the Joint Stipulation or portions

9

thereof should be filed under seal.

If the parties want to file

10
11

Fifth, parties must follow procedures from Local Rule 79 for

12

submitting confidential information to the court.

(Proposed Order

13

at 9-10, ¶ n).

14

to be filed in Court, such papers shall be accompanied by an

15

application pursuant to Local Rule 79, to file the papers – or the

16

confidential portion thereof – under seal.

17

be directed to the judge to whom the papers are directed. Pending

18

the ruling on the application, the papers or portions thereof

19

subject to the sealing applications shall be lodged under seal.

If confidential material is included in any papers

The application shall

20
21

The

Court

advises

the

parties

that

all

future

discovery

22

documents shall include the following in the caption: “[Discovery

23

Document:

24

Finally,

25

http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov)

26

regarding protective orders and a sample protective order. This

27

information is available in Judge Segal’s section of the link

28

marked “Judges’ Procedures & Schedules.”

Referred
the

to

Court

Magistrate
notes

Judge
that

contains

4

Suzanne
its

H.

Segal].”

website

additional

(see

guidance

1
2

The parties may submit a revised Stipulation and [Proposed]
Protective Order for the Court’s consideration.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

DATED:

June 29, 2017

7
8
/S/
__________
SUZANNE H. SEGAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5