Barbosa v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp.

Filing 35

ORDER on request for stipulated protective order. The parties' stipulated request for a protective order 27 is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/11/2012. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

CHRISTINA BARBOSA, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs

13

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00275-LJO-SKO
ORDER ON REQUEST FOR
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.

14

(Docket No. 31)
CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORP.,

15
16

Defendant.
/

17
18

I.

INTRODUCTION

19

On July 10, 2012, the parties filed a stipulated request for a protective order regarding

20

confidential discovery materials. (Doc. 31.) The Court has reviewed the stipulation and request for

21

a protective order and has determined that, in its current form, the Court cannot grant the request for

22

a protective order. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties’

23

request.

24
25

II.
A.

DISCUSSION

The Parties Fail to Comply with Local Rule 141.1

26

The stipulation and proposed order do not comply with Local Rules of the United States

27

District Court, Eastern District of California, Rule 141.1. Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c), any

28

proposed order submitted by the parties must contain the following provisions:

1

(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);

(2)

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

(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.

2
3
4
5
6
7

Local Rule 141.1(c). The stipulation and proposed order fail to contain any of this required

8

information.

9
10

1.

The Parties Fail to Provide a Description of the Type of Information Eligible for
Protection Under the Proposed Protective Order

11

Under Local Rule 141.1(c)(1), the parties must provide “[a] description of the types of

12

information eligible for protection under the order.” Such information may be “provided in general

13

terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the information (e.g., customer list, formula for soda, diary

14

of a troubled child).” Id.

15

Here, the proposed protective order sets forth that protected information is “any Disclosure

16

or Discovery Material that is designated as ‘CONFIDENTIAL,’” and that confidential information

17

or items are “information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things

18

that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).” (Doc. 31, ¶¶ 2.2, 2.13.)

19

Rule 26(c) deals with general discovery provisions regarding protective orders, but does not

20

provide a specific “description of the types of information eligible for protection.” Local Rule

21

141.1(c)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). As such, the parties’ broad definition of confidential

22

information fails to identify “the nature of the information” the parties seek to protect as required

23

under Local Rule 141.1(c)(1).

24

2.

25

Local Rule 141.1(c)(2) requires “[a] showing of particularized need for protection as to each

26

category of information proposed to be covered by the order.” The parties fail to show such a

27

particularized need and simply state:

The Parties Fail to Show a Particularized Need for Protection

28
2

1

4

Each Party or Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under
this Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that
qualifies under the appropriate standards. The Designating Party must designate for
protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or oral or written
communications that qualify – so that other portions of the material, documents,
items, or communications for which protection is not warranted are not swept
unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order.

5

(Doc. 31, ¶ 5.1.) This is far too broad and tenuous a category of information and provides no

6

explanation as to why a particularized need for protection is required or what category of information

7

is covered under the protective order.

2
3

8
9

3.

The Parties Fail to Show Why the Need for Protection Should Be Addressed by
Court Order

10

Local Rule 141.1(c)(3) requires that the parties show “why the need for protection should be

11

addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties.” The

12

parties fail to address this requirement.

13

The Court can perhaps glean from the proposed protective order that the parties would like

14

the ability to request that the Court rule on challenges to a party’s confidentiality designation. (See

15

Doc. 31, ¶ 6.3.) However, it is unclear as to how the Court could decide on such a dispute since, as

16

discussed above, there is no information provided in the proposed protective order defining

17

confidential materials and therefore no guidance given to the Court as to how such a dispute should

18

be resolved.

19

B.

20
21

The Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order is Denied Without Prejudice
The parties may refile a revised stipulation and proposed order for a protective order that

comply with Local Rule 141.1(c) and correct the deficiencies set forth in this order.

22

III.

23
24

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ stipulated request for a protective
order (Doc. 27) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated:
ie14hj

July 11, 2012

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
3