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)

Download PDF
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

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?