Brewer v. Skywest Airlines, Inc.

Filing 17

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT Prejudice Stipulated Protective Order. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 11/22/2016. (Timken, A)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6

MARQUISE BREWER,

7

Plaintiff,

8
9

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE STIPULATED
PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.
SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.,

10
11

Case No. 1:16-cv-01056-LJO-SKO

(Doc. 15)

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

12

I.

INTRODUCTION

13
On November 22, 2016, the parties filed a request seeking Court approval of their

14
15
16
17
18

Stipulated Protective Order.

21
22
23
24

set forth below, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties’ request to approve the stipulated
protective order.
II.
A.

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

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

26

28

DISCUSSION

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

25

27

The Court has reviewed the proposed stipulated

protective order and has determined that, in its current form, it cannot be granted. For the reasons

19
20

(Doc. 15.)

1

(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.

2
3 Local Rule 141.1(c). The stipulated protective order fails to contain this required information.
4

Local Rule 141.1(c)(1) requires “[a] description of the types of information eligible for

5 protection under the order, with the description provided in general terms sufficient to reveal the
6 nature of the information (e.g., customer list, formula for soda, diary of a troubled child).” The
7 protective order, in its current form, does not describe the types of information eligible for
8 protection in even the most general of terms. (See Doc. 15, pp. 1-2 (describing materials to be
9 protected only as “information that a party believes in good faith to be a trade secret or
10 confidential research, development, commercial, personnel, or other proprietary business or
11 financial information within the meaning of Federal R. Civ. P. 26(c)” (“Confidential Information”)
12 and “information that a party believes in good faith to be a trade secret or confidential research,
13 development, commercial, personnel, or other proprietary business or financial information within
14 the meaning of Federal R. Civ. P. 26(c) that is especially sensitive and disclosure of which would
15 create an unreasonable risk of compromising the confidential information” (“Attorney’s Eyes
16 Only”)).)
17

The protective order also fails to identify the parties’ need for protection in anything but

18 the most general terms. As the parties do not present any particularized need for protection as to
19 the identified categories of information to be protected, the protective order fails to comply with
20 Local Rule 141.1(c)(2), which requires “[a] showing of particularized need for protection as to
21 each category of information proposed to be covered by the order.”
22

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

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

The Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order is Denied Without Prejudice

26

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

27 Local Rule 141.1(c) and corrects the deficiencies set forth in this order.
28 //
2

1

III.

2

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

3 Stipulated Protective Order (Doc. 15) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request.
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 Dated:
7

November 22, 2016

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

.