Smith v. City Of Fresno, et al.
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE STIUPLATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 11 . Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/18/2017. (Timken, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
CITY OF FRESNO, et al.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00478-AWI-SKO
On August 17, 2017, the parties filed a request seeking Court approval of their stipulated
Protective Order. (Doc. 11.) 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.
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.
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.
Pursuant to Rule 141.1(c), any
proposed protective order submitted by the parties must contain the following provisions:
1 Local Rule 141.1(c). The stipulated protective order fails to contain this required information.
Local Rule 141.1(c)(1) requires “[a] description of the types of information eligible for
3 protection under the order, with the description provided in general terms sufficient to reveal the
4 nature of the information.” The protective order, in its current form, does not identify the types of
5 information eligible for protection in even the broadest of terms. (See Doc. 11 at 2 (describing
6 materials to be protected only as “documents for which the designating party would be entitled to
7 have protected from public disclosure by Court order under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of
8 Civil Procedure and the relevant case law”).)
The protective order also fails to identify the parties’ need for protection in anything but
10 the most general terms. As the parties do not present any particularized need for protection as to
11 the identified categories of information to be protected, the protective order fails to comply with
12 Local Rule 141.1(c)(2), which requires “[a] showing of particularized need for protection as to
13 each category of information proposed to be covered by the order.”
Finally, the requirement of Local Rule 141.1(c)(3) is not at all addressed. In its current
15 form, the protective order does not show “why the need for protection should be addressed by a
16 court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties.”
The Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order is Denied Without Prejudice
The parties may re-file a revised proposed stipulated protective order that complies with
19 Local Rule 141.1(c) and corrects the deficiencies set forth in this order.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ request for approval of the
22 Stipulated Protective Order (Doc. 11) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 18, 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?