Ivan Mejia v. DirecTV, Inc et al
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER re: Ex Parte Application for PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato re First EX PARTE APPLICATION for Protective Order for discovery of matters related to proprietary and confidential information 31 The parties are advised that the Court declines to issue the proposed protective order. (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS) (dts)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EDCV 17-1420-PA (KKx)
Date: December 5, 2017
Title: Ivan Mejia v. DirecTV, Inc., 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: Ex Parte Application for Protective Order [Dkt. 31]
The Plaintiff’s proposed unopposed 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 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 proposed order should,
thus, include language to make this explicit.
Proposed ¶ 4 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 separate 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.
Proposed ¶ 13 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
Page 1 of 2
Initials of Deputy Clerk __
proposed Protective Order must be brought in strict compliance with Local Rules 37-1 and 37-2
(including the Joint Stipulation requirement).
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
The Court notes Plaintiff titled the proposed Order a “[Proposed] Stipulated
Protective Order.” The parties are advised stipulations must be signed by counsel for all parties.
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 Percy Anderson
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?