Salazar, et al. v. SYSCO Central California, Inc.

Filing 12

ORDER DENYING Without Prejudice Stipulated Protective Order. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/2/2016. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

JESUS SALAZAR and MATTHEW
VALENCIA,

10

13
14
15

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE STIPULATED
PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiffs,

11
12

Case No. 1:15-cv-01758-DAD-SKO

v.
(Doc. 11)
SYSCO CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, INC., a
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
I.

16
17

INTRODUCTION

On August 2, 2016, the parties filed a request seeking Court approval of their Stipulated

18 Protective Order. (Doc. 11.) The Court has reviewed the proposed stipulated protective order and
19 has determined that, in its current form, it cannot be granted. For the reasons set forth below, the
20 Court DENIES without prejudice the parties’ request to approve the stipulated protective order.
II.

21

DISCUSSION

22 A.

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

23

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

24 United States District Court, Eastern District of California.

Pursuant to Rule 141.1(c), any

25 proposed protective order submitted by the parties must contain the following provisions:
26
27
28

(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)

2
3

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

(3)

1

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.

4 Local Rule 141.1(c). The stipulated protective order fails to contain this required information.
Local Rule 141.1(c)(1) requires “[a] description of the types of information eligible for

5

6 protection under the order[.]” The protective order, in its current form, does not identify the types
7 of information eligible for protection in even the broadest of terms. (See Doc. 11, p. 2 (describing
8 materials to be protected only as “certain documents and/or information that the others contend is
9 private, highly confidential, and/or proprietary”).)
The protective order also fails to identify the parties’ need for protection in anything but

10

11 the most general terms. As the parties do not present any particularized need for protection as to
12 the identified categories of information to be protected, the protective order fails to comply with
13 Local Rule 141.1(c)(2), which requires “[a] showing of particularized need for protection as to
14 each category of information proposed to be covered by the order.”
Finally, the requirement of Local Rule 141.1(c)(3) is not at all addressed. In its current

15

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

The Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order is Denied Without Prejudice

19

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

20 Local Rule 141.1(c) and corrects the deficiencies set forth in this order.
III.

21

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

22

23 Stipulated Protective Order (Doc. 11) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26 Dated:
27

August 2, 2016

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
2

.