Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Dometic Corporation
ORDER REJECTING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER, 12 . The parties are granted leave to re-submit a compliant stipulated protective order for Court approval. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/9/2019. (Timken, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE
Case No. 1:19-cv-00800-DAD-EPG
ORDER REJECTING STIPULATED
(ECF No. 12)
On October 9, 2019, the parties filed a Stipulated Protective Order. (ECF No. 12.) As
discussed below, the Stipulated Protective Order is rejected because it fails to comply with Local
Rule 141.1(c)(1). However, the parties are granted leave to re-submit a compliant stipulated
protective order for Court approval.
“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 discovery rules, as pointed out in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91
L.Ed. 451, is to force a full disclosure.”) Thus, “[a]s a general rule, the public is permitted
‘access to litigation documents and information produced during discovery.’” In re Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Phillips
v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir.2002) and citing San Jose Mercury News,
Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 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.”)).
However, “[t]he 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).
Eastern District of California Local Rule 141.1 governs the entry of orders protecting
confidential information in this District and provides that “All information provided to the Court
in a specific action is presumptively public. . . . Confidential information exchanged through
discovery, contained in documents to be filed in an action, or presented at a hearing or trial
otherwise may be protected by seeking a protective order as described herein.” Local Rule
141.1(a)(1). Part (c) contains the requirements for a proposed protective order:
(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
Local Rule 141.1(c).
The Stipulated Protective Order submitted by the parties for Court approval (ECF No. 12)
is rejected because it fails to comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)(1). However, the parties are
granted leave to re-submit a compliant stipulated protective order for Court approval.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 9, 2019
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?