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

Filing 89

ORDER DENYING Without Prejudice Stipulated Protective Order and Confidentiality Agreement. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/09/2016. (Thorp, J)

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. 88)

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 December 7, 2016, the parties filed a request seeking Court approval of their Stipulated

15 Protective Order and Confidentiality Agreement.

(Doc. 88.)

The Court has reviewed the

16 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)(2)

21

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

22 of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Local Rule 141.1 requires, in
23 relevant part, that any proposed protective order submitted by the parties must contain the
24 following:
25
26

(2)

A showing of particularized need for protection as to each category of
information proposed to be covered by the order . . . .

27 Local Rule 141.1(c)(2).
28

1

The proposed protective order addresses this particularized need as to certain

2 “[c]onfidential business or commercial information as referenced in Federal Rule of Civil
3 Procedure 26(c)(1)(G).” (Doc. 88 at 2–3.) However, the parties fail to provide a showing of the
4 requisite particularized need for protection as to the remaining categories of materials, including
5 (1) “[c]onfidential commercial research or development as referenced in Federal Rule of Civil
6 Procedure 26(c)(1)(G);” (2) “[p]ersonnel files and other private or confidential employment
7 records or information;” and (3) “[i]nformation subject to a separate protective order or
8 confidentiality agreement.” (See id. at 3.) Absent the requisite showing of particularized need for
9 protection as to each category of information that are the subject of the protective order, the Court
10 cannot enter the protective order filed by the parties.
11 B.

The Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order is Denied Without Prejudice

12

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

13 Local Rule 141.1(c)(2) and corrects the deficiencies set forth in this order.
14

III.

15

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

16 Stipulated Protective Order and Confidentiality Agreement (Doc. 88) is DENIED without
17 prejudice to renewing the request.
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 Dated:
21

December 9, 2016

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.