Larson v. Harman-Management Corporation et al

Filing 56

ORDER DENYING Without Prejudice Proposed Stipulated Protective Order 55 . Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/24/2017. (Thorp, J)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7

CORY LARSON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated,

9
10

v.

(Doc. 55)

HARMAN-MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, et al.,

11
12

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PROPOSED STIPULATED
PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiff,

8

Case No. 1:16-cv-00219-DAD-SKO

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

13

I.

INTRODUCTION

14
On January 20, 2017, the parties filed a request seeking Court approval of their Proposed
15
Stipulated Protective Order.

(Doc. 55.)

The Court has reviewed the Proposed Stipulated

16
Protective Order and has determined that, in its current form, it cannot be granted. For the reasons
17
set forth below, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties’ request to approve the Proposed
18
Stipulated Protective Order. (Id.)
19
II.

DISCUSSION

20
A.

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

21
The Proposed Stipulated Protective Order does not comply with Rule 141.1 of the Local
22
Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California.

Pursuant to Rule

23
141.1(c), any proposed protective order submitted by the parties must contain the following
24
provisions:
25
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

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.

3

4 Local Rule 141.1(c).
The Proposed Stipulated Protective Order does not comply with subsections (2) and (3) of

5

6 Local Rule 141.1(c). Specifically, the parties fail to include in the proposed order any “showing
7 of particularized need for protection as to each category of information proposed to be covered by
8 the order,” or any “showing as to why the need for protection should be addressed by a court
9 order, as opposed to a private agreement.” (See Doc. 55, Ex. 1.) Absent the requisite showing
10 pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c)(2) and (3), the Court cannot enter the Proposed Stipulated
11 Protective Order filed by the parties.
12

B.

13

The Parties’ Proposed Stipulated Protective Order is Denied Without
Prejudice

The parties may re-file a revised proposed stipulated protective order that complies with
14
Local Rule 141.1(c) and corrects the deficiencies set forth in this order.
15
III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

16
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ request for approval
17
of the Proposed Stipulated Protective Order, (Doc. 55), is DENIED without prejudice.
18
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21

Dated:

January 24, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.