Sanchez v. Target Corporation

Filing 20

ORDER DENYING Without Prejudice Stipulated Protective Order 19 . Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 2/12/2015. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

SANDRA SANCHEZ,

Case No. 1:14-cv-00761-SKO

Plaintiff,

10

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE STIPULATED
PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.

11

(Doc. 19)

12
13

TARGET CORPORATION,

14

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

15
16
17
I.

18
19

INTRODUCTION

On February 3, 2015, the parties filed a request seeking Court approval of their Stipulation

20 and Proposed Order for a Protective Order. (Doc. 19.) The Court has reviewed the proposed
21 stipulated protective order and has determined that, in its current form, it cannot be granted. For
22 the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties’ request to approve
23 the stipulated protective order.
24

II.

DISCUSSION

25 A.

The Protective Order Does Not Comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)

26

The proposed protective order does not comply with Rule 141.1 of the Local Rules of the

27 United States District Court, Eastern District of California.

Pursuant to Rule 141.1(c), any

28 proposed protective 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 stipulated proposed protective order fails to contain this required
8 information.
The parties fail to comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)(2) which requires “[a] showing of

9

10 particularized need for protection as to each category of information proposed to be covered by the
11 order.” The parties have articulate their need for protection in only the vaguest of terms, that the
12 potential disclosure of these listed categories of documents “would have the effect of causing
13 harm.” (Doc. 19, 1.) No explanation is provided as to why a particularized need for protection is
14 required. Likewise, Local Rule 141.1(c)(3) requires that the parties show “why the need for
15 protection should be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or
16 among the parties.” The parties fail to address this requirement.
17 B.

The Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order is Denied Without Prejudice

18

The parties may re-file a revised proposed stipulated protective order that complies with

19 Local Rule 141.1(c) and corrects the deficiencies set forth in this order.
III.

20
21

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ request for approval of the

22 Stipulation and Proposed Order for a Protective Order (Doc. 19) is DENIED without prejudice to
23 renewing the request.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26

Dated:

February 12, 2015

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2