United States of America et al v. Somina, Inc., et al.

Filing 91

Order rejecting stipulated protective order, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 7/19/2018. (Rosales, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.
NICOLLE O’NEILL, et al.,

13
14

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 1:15-cv-00433-DAD-EPG
ORDER REJECTING STIPULATED
PROTECTIVE ORDER
(ECF No. 90)

v.

15
16
17
18

SOMNIA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
On July 18, 2018, the parties filed a Stipulated Protective Order Governing Disclosure of

19

Confidential Information. (ECF No. 90). “The court may, for good cause, issue an order to

20

protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or

21

expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “In the federal judicial system trial and pretrial proceedings are

22

ordinarily to be conducted in public.” Olympic Ref. Co. v. Carter, 332 F.2d 260, 264 (9th Cir.

23

1964) (“The purpose of the federal discovery rules, as pointed out in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S.

24

495, 501, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451, is to force a full disclosure.”) “As a general rule, the public

25

is permitted ‘access to litigation documents and information produced during discovery.’” In re

26

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting

27

Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir.2002) and citing San Jose Mercury

28
1

1

News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir.1999) (“It is well-established that the

2

fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively

3

public.”)).

4

Eastern District of California Local Rule 141.1 governs the entry of orders protecting

5

confidential information in this District and provides that “All information provided to the Court

6

in a specific action is presumptively public. . . . Confidential information exchanged through

7

discovery, contained in documents to be filed in an action, or presented at a hearing or trial

8

otherwise may be protected by seeking a protective order as described herein.” L.R. 141.1(a)(1).

9

Part (c) contains the requirements for a proposed protective order:

10

(c) Requirements of a Proposed Protective Order. All stipulations
and motions seeking the entry of a protective order shall be
accompanied by a proposed form of order. Every proposed protective
order shall contain the following provisions:

11
12

(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);

13
14
15

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

16

(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.

17
18
L.R. 141.1(c).
19

The Stipulated Protective Order, (ECF No. 90), submitted by the parties for Court
20
approval is rejected because it fails to comply with Local Rule 141.1(c). However, the parties are
21
granted leave to re-submit a compliant stipulated protective order for Court approval.
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated:

July 19, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2