Lanier v. City of Fresno et al

Filing 53

ORDER on request for stipulated protective order. The parties shall refile a revised stipulation and proposed order for a protective order that complies with L.R. 141.1(c) and email a conforming copy of the stipulation and proposed order to skoorders @caed.uscourts.gov; and 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. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/2/2011. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

KHALID LANIER,

12
13

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01120-LJO-SKO
Plaintiff,

ORDER ON REQUEST FOR
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.

14
15
16
17

CITY OF FRESNO, a municipal entity,
P OLICE OFFICER ALFONS O
CASTILLO, in his individual and official
capacities, POLICE OFFICER STEPHEN
TAYLOR in his individual and official
capacities, COUNTY OF FRESNO, and
DOES 1-100, Jointly and Severally,

18
Defendants.
19

/

20
21
On August 1, 2011, the parties filed a stipulated request for a protective order regarding
22
confidential discovery materials. The Court has reviewed the stipulation and request for a protective
23
order. In its current form, the Court cannot grant the request for a protective order because the
24
stipulation and proposed order do not comply with Local Rule ("L.R.") 141.1. Pursuant to L.R.
25
141.1(c), any proposed order submitted by the parties must contain the following provisions:
26
(1)
27
28

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);

1

(2)

A showing of particularized need for protection as to each category of
information proposed to be covered by the order; and

(3)
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.

4

Specifically, the stipulation and proposed order do not contain any showing as to why the

5

need for protection should be addressed by court order as opposed to a private agreement. If the

6

parties would like the Court to consider their stipulation and request, they are directed to refile a

7

stipulation and proposed order that comply with L.R. 141.1(c).

2

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

9

1.

The parties shall refile a revised stipulation and proposed order for a protective order

10

that complies with L.R. 141.1(c) and email a conforming copy of the stipulation and

11

proposed order to [e-mail]; and

12

2.

If, upon further consideration, the parties determine that there is no need for a Court

13

order due to a private agreement between them, they shall withdraw their request for

14

a protective order.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated:
ie14hj

August 2, 2011

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2