Thomas-Young v. Memorial Hospital Foundation et al

Filing 13

ORDER on Request for Stipulated Protective Order. The parties' stipulated request for a protective order (Doc. 12) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/17/2013. (Timken, A)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5

DIANE THOMAS-YOUNG,

6

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01410-AWI-SKO

Plaintiff,

7

ORDER ON REQUEST FOR
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.

8

(Docket No. 12)
MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,

9
10

Defendants.
/

11
12

I.

INTRODUCTION

13

On May 14, 2013, the parties filed a stipulated request for a protective order regarding

14

confidential, proprietary, private and/or trade secret information. (Doc. 12.) The Court has reviewed

15

the stipulation and proposed protective order and has determined that, in its current form, the Court

16

cannot grant the request for a protective order. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES

17

the parties' request without prejudice.

18
19

II.
A.

DISCUSSION

The Parties Fail to Comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)

20

The stipulation and proposed order do not comply with Rule 141.1 of the Local Rules of the

21

United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Pursuant to Rule 141.1(c), any proposed

22

order submitted by the parties must contain the following provisions:

23

(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.

24
25
26
27
28

1

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

2

The parties comply generally with Local Rule 141.1(c)(1) and provide a description of

3

information eligible for protection (see Doc. 12, ¶ 1.) However, the proposed protective order fails

4

to comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)(2), which requires "[a] showing of particularized need for

5

protection as to each category of information proposed to be covered by the order." No explanation

6

is provided as to why a particularized need for protection is required.

7

Likewise, Local Rule 141.1(c)(3) requires that the parties show "why the need for protection

8

should be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among the

9

parties." The parties fail to address this requirement. The Court can perhaps glean from the

10

proposed protective order that the parties would like the ability to request that the Court rule on

11

challenges to a party's confidentiality designation. (See Doc. 12, ¶ 11.) However, it is unclear how

12

the Court could decide such a dispute since the proposed protective order fails to identify the need

13

for such protection; therefore, no guidance has been given to the Court as to how such a dispute

14

should be resolved.

15

B.

The Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order is Denied Without Prejudice

16

The parties may refile a revised stipulation and proposed order for a protective order that

17

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

18

informed that any proposed order emailed to the Court for approval must contain the electronic

19

signature and date signed for all counsel.

20

III.

21
22

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' stipulated request for a protective
order (Doc. 12) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated:
ie14hj

May 17, 2013

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
2