Gomez v. City of Farmersville, et al.

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING Without Prejudice Stipulated Protective Order. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/30/2017. (Timken, A)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6

BERNARDINA GOMEZ,

7

Plaintiff,

8
9

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE STIPULATED
PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.
CITY OF FARMERSVILLE, et al.,

10
11

Case No. 1:16-cv-01252-AWI-SKO

(Doc. 23)

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

12

I.

INTRODUCTION

13
On October 24, 2017, the parties filed a request seeking Court approval of their stipulated

14
15
16
17

Protective Order. (Doc. 23.) 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.

18
19
20
21
22
23

A.

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.

(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.

25

27
28

Pursuant to Rule 141.1(c), any

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

24

26

DISCUSSION

1 Local Rule 141.1(c).

The stipulated protective order fails to contain all of this required

2 information.
While the protective order, in its current form, adequately describes the “types of

3

4 information eligible for protection under the order” under Local Rule 141.1(c)(1), in that it
5 attaches a list of the documents the parties seek to protect, it fails to identify the parties’ need for
6 such protection in anything but the most general terms.

As the parties do not present any

7 particularized need for protection as to the identified categories of information to be protected, the
8 protective order fails to comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)(2), which requires “[a] showing of
9 particularized need for protection as to each category of information proposed to be covered by the
10 order.”
11

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

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

The Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order is Denied Without Prejudice

15

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

16 Local Rule 141.1(c) and corrects the deficiencies set forth in this order.
17

III.

18

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

19 Stipulated Protective Order (Doc. 23) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request.
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 Dated:
23

October 30, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2

.