Larson v. Harman-Management Corporation et al
ORDER DENYING Without Prejudice Proposed Stipulated Protective Order 55 . Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/24/2017. (Thorp, J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CORY LARSON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated,
CORPORATION, et al.,
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PROPOSED STIPULATED
Case No. 1:16-cv-00219-DAD-SKO
On January 20, 2017, the parties filed a request seeking Court approval of their Proposed
Stipulated Protective Order.
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Stipulated
Protective Order and has determined that, in its current form, it cannot be granted. For the reasons
set forth below, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties’ request to approve the Proposed
Stipulated Protective Order. (Id.)
The Protective Order Does Not Comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)
The Proposed Stipulated Protective Order does not comply with Rule 141.1 of the Local
Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California.
Pursuant to Rule
141.1(c), any proposed protective order submitted by the parties must contain the following
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
A showing of particularized need for protection as to each category of
information proposed to be covered by the order; and
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 Proposed Stipulated Protective Order does not comply with subsections (2) and (3) of
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.
The Parties’ Proposed Stipulated Protective Order is Denied Without
The parties may re-file a revised proposed stipulated protective order that complies with
Local Rule 141.1(c) and corrects the deficiencies set forth in this order.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ request for approval
of the Proposed Stipulated Protective Order, (Doc. 55), is DENIED without prejudice.
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 24, 2017
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?