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)

Download PDF
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 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

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?