Mitri v. Walgreen Co.

Filing 11

ORDER on Request for Stipulated Protective Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/17/2010. (Timken, A)

Mitri v. Walgreen Co.

Doc. 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 On December 15, 2010, the parties filed a stipulated request for a protective order regarding 19 confidential discovery materials. The Court has reviewed the stipulation and request for a protective 20 order. In its current form, the Court cannot grant the request for a protective order because the 21 stipulation and proposed order do not comply with Local Rule ("L.R.") 141.1. Pursuant to L.R. 22 141.1(c), any proposed order submitted by the parties must contain the following provisions: 23 (1) 24 25 26 27 (3) 28 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. (2) 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 / WALGREEN CO. INC . , dba WALGREENS; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, v. SAMI MITRI, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00538-AWI-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

Specifically, the stipulation and proposed order do not contain any showing as to why the 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 comply with L.R. 141.1(c). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The parties shall refile a revised proposed protective order that contains a showing as to why the need for protection should be addressed by court order as opposed to a private agreement as set forth in L.R. 141.1(c); 2. The parties shall email a conforming copy of the stipulation and proposed order to [e-mail]; 3. Any proposed order submitted to [e-mail] should contain the electronic signatures of counsel; and 3. 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 December 17, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2