Almanza v. Credit One Bank, N.A.
Filing
25
ORDER DENYING Without Prejudice Stipulated Protective Order. 24 . Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 2/21/2018. (Timken, A)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
YOLANDA ALMANZA,
7
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
11
12
v.
CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A., et al.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00830-DAD-SKO
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE STIPULATED
PROTECTIVE ORDER
CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A,
(Doc. 24)
Third-Party Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
16
PETER ALMANZA, et al.,
Third-Party Defendants.
_____________________________________/
17
18
I.
INTRODUCTION
On February 20, 2018, the parties filed a request seeking Court approval of their stipulated
19 protective order. (Doc. 24.) The Court has reviewed the proposed stipulated protective order and
20 has determined that, in its current form, it cannot be granted. For the reasons set forth below, the
21 Court DENIES without prejudice the parties’ request to approve the stipulated protective order.
22
II.
DISCUSSION
23 A.
The Protective Order Does Not Comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)
24
The proposed protective order does not comply with Rule 141.1 of the Local Rules of the
25 United States District Court, Eastern District of California.
Pursuant to Rule 141.1(c), any
26 proposed protective order submitted by the parties must contain the following provisions:
27
28
(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);
1
2
(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.
3
4
5
6 Local Rule 141.1(c). The stipulated protective order fails to contain this required information.
7
Local Rule 141.1(c)(1) requires “[a] description of the types of information eligible for
8 protection under the order, with the description provided in general terms sufficient to reveal the
9 nature of the information.” The protective order, in its current form, does not identify the types of
10 information eligible for protection in even the broadest of terms. (See Doc. 24 at 2 (describing
11 materials to be protected only as “information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or
12 maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
13 26(c).”).)
14
The protective order also fails to identify the parties’ need for protection in anything but
15 the most general terms. As the parties do not present any particularized need for protection as to
16 the identified categories of information to be protected, the protective order fails to comply with
17 Local Rule 141.1(c)(2), which requires “[a] showing of particularized need for protection as to
18 each category of information proposed to be covered by the order.”
19
Finally, the requirement of Local Rule 141.1(c)(3) is not at all addressed. In its current
20 form, the protective order does not show “why the need for protection should be addressed by a
21 court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties.”
22 B.
The Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order is Denied Without Prejudice
23
The parties may re-file a revised proposed stipulated protective order that complies with
24 Local Rule 141.1(c) and corrects the deficiencies set forth in this order.
25 //
26 //
27 //
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. 24) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6 Dated:
7
February 21, 2018
/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
.
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?