McMillan v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC et al

Filing 87

ORDER DENYING Without Prejudice Stipulated Protective Order and Confidentiality Agreement. 85 . Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 11/29/2016. (Timken, A)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7

GLENN McMILLAN, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

10

v.
LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC, et al.,

(Doc. 85)

Defendants.

11
12

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE STIPULATED
PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT

Plaintiff,

8
9

Case No. 1:15-cv-00695-DAD-SKO

_____________________________________/
I.

13
14

INTRODUCTION

On November 28, 2016, the parties filed a request seeking Court approval of their

15 Stipulated Protective Order and Confidentiality Agreement. (Doc. 85.) The Court has reviewed
16 the proposed stipulated protective order and has determined that, in its current form, it cannot be
17 granted. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties’ request
18 to approve the stipulated protective order.
19

II.

DISCUSSION

20 A.

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

21

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

22 United States District Court, Eastern District of California.

Pursuant to Rule 141.1(c), any

23 proposed protective order submitted by the parties must contain the following provisions:
24

(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

25
26
27
28

1

(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 Local Rule 141.1(c). The stipulated protective order fails to contain this required information.
4

Local Rule 141.1(c)(1) requires “[a] description of the types of information eligible for

5 protection under the order, with the description provided in general terms sufficient to reveal the
6 nature of the information (e.g., customer list, formula for soda, diary of a troubled child).” While
7 the protective order, in its current form, adequately specifies the types of information eligible for
8 protection as “Attorneys Eyes Only,” it does not describe the types of information eligible for
9 protection as “Confidential Information” in even the most general of terms. (See Doc. 85, p. 1
10 (defining “Confidential Information” as “non-public, confidential or proprietary financial,
11 technical, commercial, or personal information that is contained or disclosed in any materials
12 governed by this Order and designated by a producing party or person in accordance with the
13 procedures set forth in Section 2 of this Order.”)).
14

The protective order also fails to identify the parties’ need for protection in anything but

15 the most general terms. As the parties do not present any particularized need for protection as to
16 the identified categories of information to be protected, the protective order fails to comply with
17 Local Rule 141.1(c)(2), which requires “[a] showing of particularized need for protection as to
18 each category of information proposed to be covered by the order.”
19

Finally, the requirement of Local Rule 141.1(c)(3) is not at all addressed. In its current

20 form, the protective order does not show “why the need for protection should be addressed by a
21 court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties.”
22 B.

The Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order is Denied Without Prejudice

23

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

24 Local Rule 141.1(c) and corrects the deficiencies set forth in this order.
25 //
26 //
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 and Confidentiality Agreement (Doc. 85) is DENIED without
4 prejudice to renewing the request.
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 Dated:
8

November 29, 2016

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

.