Williams v. Baker et al

Filing 125

ORDER DENYING without prejudice Stipulated Protective Order 124 signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 12/8/2022. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHANNON WILLIAMS,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:16-cv-1540-ADA-HBK (PC)
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.
(Doc. No. 124)
CHRISTOPHER BAKER, and UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

17
18

Pending before the Court is the parties’ request for approval of the proposed stipulated

19

protective order filed on December 7, 2022. (Doc. Nos. 124, 124-1). The Court denies the

20

request, without prejudice, because the proposed protective order does not comply with the

21

Court’s Local Rules.

22
23
24
25

More specifically, the proposed protective order does not define exactly what materials
are protected. Notably, the term “confidential” is defined as follows:
‘CONFIDENTIAL’ Information or Items: information (regardless
of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that
qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).

26
27
28

(Doc. No. 124-1 at 1, ¶2.2). Similarly, “PROTECTED MATERIAL” is defined as “any
Disclosure or Discovery material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.’” Such language is

1

too broad and not compliant with the local rules. Specifically, Eastern District of California

2

Local Rule 141.1(c) requires that every proposed protective order contain the following:

3

[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.”
(paragraph breaks omitted.)

4
5
6
7
8

Eastern District of California Local Rule 141.1(c).

9

The parties have failed to comply with Local Rule 141.1(c). The parties have included a

10

catchall description of confidential information and such description is not sufficient “in general

11

terms [] to reveal the nature of the information” under Local Rule 141.1(c)(1). Further, the

12

parties also have not made a showing of particularized need for protection as to each category or

13

explained why a court order is necessary, as opposed to a private agreement between the parties.

14

Id.

15

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

16

The parties’ request for approval of the proposed stipulated protective order (Doc. No.

17

124) is DENIED, without prejudice, to refiling a stipulated protective order that complies with

18

Local Rule 141.1(c).

19
20
21

Dated:

December 8, 2022
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2