Nelson v. Community Action Partnership of Madera County, Inc.
Filing
20
ORDER DENYING Without Prejudice Stipulated Protective Order 19 . Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/22/2015. (Timken, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
FANTA NELSON,
Case No. 1:14-cv-02064-SKO
Plaintiff,
10
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE STIPULATED
PROTECTIVE ORDER
v.
11
(Doc. 19)
12
13
14
15
COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF
MADERA COUNTY, INC.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
16
17
I.
18
19
INTRODUCTION
On October 21, 2015, 2015, the parties filed a request seeking Court approval of their
20 Stipulated Protective Order.
(Doc. 19.)
The Court has reviewed the proposed stipulated
21 protective order and has determined that, in its current form, it cannot be granted. For the reasons
22 set forth below, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties’ request to approve the stipulated
23 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 protective order fails to contain this required information.
8
Local Rule 141.1(c)(1) requires “[a] description of the types of information eligible for
9 protection under the order[.]” The protective order, in its current form, fails to identify in even the
10 most sweeping terms the categories of information the parties intend to protect. (See Doc. 19, p. 1
11 (limiting the scope of the protective order to “protected information” and defining “protected
12 information” as “any documents which have been or will be produced by any party who has
13 appeared or will hereafter appear that are marked ‘CONFIDENTIAL.’”) (italics added).) There is
14 no list of categories of information to identify the standards by which information shall be marked
15 as ‘confidential’ by the parties. (See Doc. 19, pp. 1-8.)
16
The parties’ need for protection is also described only in vague terms. As the parties do
17 not present any particularized need for protection as to any identified category of information to be
18 protected, the protective order also fails to comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)(2), which requires
19 “[a] showing of particularized need for protection as to each category of information proposed to
20 be covered by the order.”
21
Finally, the requirement of Local Rule 141.1(c)(3) is not addressed. In its current form, the
22 protective order does not show “why the need for protection should be addressed by a court order,
23 as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties.”
24 B.
The Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order is Denied Without Prejudice
25
The parties may re-file a revised proposed stipulated protective order that complies with
26 Local Rule 141.1(c) and corrects the deficiencies set forth in this order.
27 //
28 //
2
1
III.
2
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ request for approval of the
3 Stipulated Protective Order (Doc. 19) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6 Dated:
October 22, 2015
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?