R.R., et al. v. County of Tulare, et al.

Filing 39

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Stipulated Protective Order 38 . Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 9/27/2016. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

R.R., a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Case No. 1:16-cv-00570-AWI-SKO
Litem, DEBRA RUIZ, and DEBRA RUIZ,
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
individually and as successor in interest to
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
Ryan Christopher Ruiz Rodriguez, Deceased,
(Doc. 38)

Plaintiffs,
12
v.

13
14
15
16

COUNTY OF TULARE, CITY OF
FARMERSVILLE, KRISTINE BARKLOW,
BENJAMIN QUINTANA, and DOES 3-10,
inclusive,
Defendants.

17
18

_____________________________________/
I.

19

On September 23, 2016, the parties filed a request seeking Court approval of their

20
21
22
23
24

Stipulated Protective Order.

27
28

(Doc. 38.)

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 stipulated
protective order.
II.

25
26

INTRODUCTION

A.

DISCUSSION

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

1 proposed protective order submitted by the parties must contain the following provisions:
2

(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

(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.

3
4
5
6
7
8

Local Rule 141.1(c).
9
10

Local Rule 141.1(c)(1) requires “[a] description of the types of information eligible for
protection under the order[.]” The protective order, in its current form, does identify the types of

11
information eligible for protection. (See Doc. 24, p. 1 (limiting the scope of the protective order to
12

“crime scene investigation reports prepared by Tulare County Sheriff’s Department and other law

13
enforcement agencies (Farmersville Police Department and Visalia Police Department), including
14
audio/video recordings, probation records, jail booking jackets, medical records, autopsy reports,
15
including photos, police personnel records, including but not limited to internal investigations
16

reports regarding Defendant, Benjamin Quintana, by Tulare County Sheriff’s Department, his

17
current employer, Defendant Kristine Barklow, by Farmersville Police Department and/or other
18

documents to be produced by Defendants in compliance with Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production

19
of Documents.”).)
20

The protective order, however, fails to identify the parties’ need for protection in anything

21
but the most general terms. As the parties do not present any particularized need for protection as
22
to the identified categories of information to be protected, the protective order also fails to comply
23
24

with Local Rule 141.1(c)(2), which requires “[a] showing of particularized need for protection as
to each category of information proposed to be covered by the order.”

25
Finally, the requirement of Local Rule 141.1(c)(3) is not at all addressed. In its current
26
27

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

28
2

1 B.

The Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order is Denied Without Prejudice

2

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

3 Local Rule 141.1(c) and corrects the deficiencies set forth in this order.
4

III.

5

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

6 Stipulated Protective Order (Doc. 38) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request.
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated:
10

September 27, 2016

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

.