Jessen et al v. County of Fresno et al
Filing
30
Order rejecting 28 29 stipulated protective order, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 4/4/2018. (Rosales, O)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DAVID JESSEN, GRETCHEN JESSEN,
12
13
Plaintiffs,
v.
14
COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al.,
15
Case No. 1:17-cv-00524-DAD-EPG
ORDER REJECTING STIPULATED
PROTECTIVE ORDER
(ECF Nos. 28, 29)
Defendants.
16
On April 3, 2018, the parties filed a Motion for Protective Order and Stipulated Protective
17
18
19
20
Order. “The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “In
the federal judicial system trial and pretrial proceedings are ordinarily to be conducted in public.”
Olympic Ref. Co. v. Carter, 332 F.2d 260, 264 (9th Cir. 1964) (“The purpose of the federal
21
discovery rules, as pointed out in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed.
22
23
451, is to force a full disclosure.”) “As a general rule, the public is permitted ‘access to litigation
documents and information produced during discovery.’” In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of
24
Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
25
307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir.2002)); San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d
26
27
1096, 1103 (9th Cir.1999) (“It is well-established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the
absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public.”).
28
1
1
Eastern District of California Local Rule 141.1 governs the entry of orders protecting
2
confidential information in this District and provides that “All information provided to the Court
3
in a specific action is presumptively public. . . . Confidential information exchanged through
4
discovery, contained in documents to be filed in an action, or presented at a hearing or trial
5
otherwise may be protected by seeking a protective order as described herein.” L.R. 141.1(a)(1).
6
Part (c) contains the requirements for a proposed protective order:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
(c) Requirements of a Proposed Protective Order. All stipulations and motions
seeking the entry of a protective order shall be accompanied by a proposed form of
order. Every proposed protective order shall 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
(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.
L.R. 141.1(c).
15
The Stipulated Protective Order (ECF Nos. 28, 29) submitted by the parties for Court
16
approval is rejected because it fails to comply with L.R. 141.1(c). However, the parties are
17
granted leave to submit a compliant stipulated protective order for Court approval.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
Dated:
April 4, 2018
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?