Andreas v. Lowe's HIW, Inc.

Filing 15

ORDER re 14 , Request for stipulated protective order, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/16/2010. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The parties refile a revised stipulation and proposed order for a protective order that complies with L.R. 141.1(d); If, upon further consideration, the parties determine that there is no need for a Court order due to a private agreement between them, they shall withdraw their request for a protective order. (Timken, A)

Andreas v. Lowe's HIW, Inc.

Doc. 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Specifically, the stipulation and proposed order do not contain any showing as to why the 28 (2) (3) On July 16, 2010, the parties filed a stipulated request for a protective order regarding confidential discovery materials. The Court has reviewed the stipulation and request for a protective order. In its current form, the Court cannot grant the request for a protective order because the stipulation and proposed order do 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 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. v. LOWE'S HIW, INC., a Washington corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. / ROBERT ANDREAS, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:09-cv-02257-LJO-SKO ORDER ON REQUEST FOR STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Dockets.Justia.com

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

need for protection should be addressed by court order as opposed to a private agreement. If the parties would like the Court to consider their stipulation and request, they are directed to refile a stipulation and proposed order that complies with L.R. 141.1(d). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The parties refile a revised stipulation and proposed order for a protective order that complies with L.R. 141.1(d). 2. If, upon further consideration, the parties determine that there is no need for a Court order due to a private agreement between them, they shall withdraw their request for a protective order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ie14hj July 16, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2