Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. American Dairy and Food Consulting Laboratories, Inc.

Filing 74

ORDER on Request for Protective Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/24/2010. (Timken, A)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 (2) On June 22, 2010, the parties filed a stipulated request for a protective order regarding confidential discovery materials. The parties also filed a proposed order; however they did not email a copy of the proposed order so that it could be signed. The Court has nevertheless reviewed the stipulated request for a protective order. In its current form, the Court cannot grant the request for a protective order because it does not comply with new Local Rule ("L.R.") 141.1. Pursuant to L.R. 141.1(d), any proposed order submitted by the parties must contain the following provisions: (1) A description of the types of information eligible for protection under the order, with the description provided in general terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the information (e.g., customer list, formula for soda, diary of a troubled child); A showing of particularized need for protection as to each category of information proposed to be covered by the order; and v. A M E R IC A N DAIRY AND FOOD CONSULTING LABORATORIES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. / HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00914-OWW-SKO ORDER ON REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2

(3)

A showing as to why the need for protection should be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties.

Specifically, the proposed order does not contain any showing as to why the need for 3 protection should be addressed by court order as opposed to a private agreement. If the parties would 4 like the Court to consider their stipulation and request, they are directed to refile a request for a 5 protective order that complies with L.R. 141.1(d). 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 7 1. 8 141.1(d); and 9 2. 10 or WordPerfect format to [e-mail]. 11 If, upon further consideration, the parties determine that there is no need for a court order due 12 to a private agreement between them, they shall withdraw their request for a protective order. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Dated: ie14hj June 24, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The parties shall email a conforming copy of the proposed order to the Court in Word The parties shall file a revised request for a protective order that complies with L.R.