Bravado International Group Merchandising Services Inc et al v. Vestal Watch Inc et al

Filing 28

ORDER RE STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: re: Stipulation for Protective Order 24 . The parties' joint request for court approval of the stipulated protective order is denied without prejudice to its renewal on the basis of a more adequate record. See document for further details. (yb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION CIVIL MINUTES--GENERAL Case No. SACV 08-0573 AHS (AJWx) Title: Date: November 24, 2008

BRAVADO INTERNATIONAL GROUP MERCHANDISING SERVICES, INC., et al. v. VESTAL WATCH, INC., et al. ====================================================================
PRESENT: HON. ANDREW J. WISTRICH, MAGISTRATE JUDGE Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None Present

Ysela Benavides Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: None Present

ORDER REGARDING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER The parties' joint request for court approval of the stipulated protective order is denied without prejudice to its renewal on the basis of a more adequate record. The proposed order contains no restriction whatsoever on what may be designated as confidential or filed under seal. No facts about the case, and no description of the types of documents or information that will be disclosed or exchanged during discovery, are provided. On the present record, good cause for entry of a protective order by the court has not been shown, and the parties have not demonstrated a sufficient basis for the sealing of material filed with the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 504 F.3d 792, 801-803 (9th Cir. 2007); Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-1180 (9th Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130-1131 (9th Cir. 2003); Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-1211 (9th Cir. 2002); San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. United States District Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). The parties, of course, are free to enter into a private contract to keep information exchanged during the disclosure or discovery process confidential until it is used in a proceeding. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Arguably, they have done so by their stipulation. They also may request that particular documents filed with the court be sealed by presenting an application based upon a showing of good cause to the judge to whom the papers are directed. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 79-5. Finally, the parties may seek a more general protective order safeguarding the confidentiality of specified documents or information based upon facts presented by means of one or more declarations signed under penalty of perjury. IT IS SO ORDERED. cc: Parties
MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL-GEN Initials of Deputy Clerk________