Samatria McCuistion vs DaVita, Inc.

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING, without prejudice, the parties' proposed stipulation for a protective order, document 13 . Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 11/19/2021.(Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
SAMATRIA MCCUISTION,

10

Case No. 1:21-cv-00985-NONE-EPG
Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

DAVITA, INC.,

13

ORDER DENYING PROPOSED
STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Defendant.

(ECF No. 13)

14
15
On November 18, 2021, the parties filed a proposed stipulation for a protective order. (ECF
16
No. 13). The stipulation will be denied, without prejudice, because it does not comply with Local
17

Rule 141.1 and the Court’s established procedures.

18
Regarding Local Rule 141.1(c)(1)-(2), the parties failed to provide an adequate description
19
of the types of information eligible for protection and a particularized showing of need for
20
protection as to each category of information covered by their proposed order. Paragraph one
21

defines “confidential” to mean “any information which is in the possession of a Designating Party

22
who believes in good faith that such non-public information is entitled to confidential treatment
23

under applicable law.”1 (Id. at 2). It defines “confidential materials” to mean:

24
any Documents, Testimony or Information as defined below designated as
“CONFIDENTIAL” pursuant to the provisions of this Protective Order, including,
but not limited to, (i) documents or testimony not otherwise available to the public

25
26
27

In this order, the Court has omitted some capitalization used by the parties’ proposed stipulation for a
protective order.
1

28

1

regarding DaVita’s commercial or financial information, including materials
regarding DaVita’s business or marketing plans, sales practices, revenues or cash
levels; (ii) documents or testimony regarding DaVita’s trade secrets; (iii) documents
or testimony regarding DaVita’s patients, clients, customers, accounts, financial
records, and transactions, including emails which include information relating to any
of DaVita’s patients; (iv) health or private information of DaVita’s patients; (v)
health, employment, and financial information of Plaintiff Samatria McCuistion; and
(vi) other documents or testimony subject to an agreement between the parties that,
due to the nature of the materials, those documents or testimony should be
designated CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with this Order.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

(Id.).
Here, the parties have included a catchall description of confidential information to include
information that they “believe[] in good faith . . . is entitled to confidential treatment under

10

applicable law.” Such description is not sufficient “in general terms [] to reveal the nature of the

11

information” under LR 141.1(c)(1). While the parties also provide, as exemplars, some general

12

categories of documents that are “sufficient to reveal the nature of the information,” the catch-all

13

language does not limit the confidentiality order to these categories. Moreover, the parties fail to

14

make “[a] showing of particularized need for protection as to each category of information proposed

15

to be covered by the order.” LR 141(c)(2).

16
17

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ proposed stipulation for a protective order
(ECF No. 13) is DENIED without prejudice.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
Dated:
21

November 19, 2021

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2