Aiden Stockman et al v. Donald J. Trump et al

Filing 92

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato re Stipulation for Issuance, 91 , Stipulation for Protective Order 90 The parties are advised that the Court declines to issue the proposed orders to which they have stipulated. (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS) (dts)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 17-1799-JGB (KKx)

Date: April 18, 2018

Title: Aiden Stockman, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, 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 and Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d)
Order [Dkts. 90, 91]

The parties’ proposed Stipulated Protective Order and Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d)
Order have been referred by the District Judge to the Magistrate Judge for consideration. The
parties are advised that the Court declines to issue the proposed orders 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.
Proposed ¶¶ 8, 11, and 17 of the Protective Order 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).
3.
Proposed ¶ 14 of the 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
Page 1 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

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.
4.
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.
5.
Proposed ¶ 5 of the Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) Order needs to be revised to
make clear that any motions disputing privilege assertions must be brought in strict compliance
with Local Rules 37-1 and 37-2 (including the Joint Stipulation requirement) and Local Rule 79-5,
and may only be filed under seal pursuant to a separate court order authorizing the sealing of the
specific Protected Material at issue.
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 __