Saucedo v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Filing 29

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 27 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER, signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 11/21/2024. (Apodaca, P)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VALERIANO SAUCEDO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

Case No. 1:22-cv-01584-KES-HBK
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.
(Doc. No. 27)
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant.

16
17

Pending before the Court is the parties’ request for approval of the proposed stipulated

18

protective order filed on November 20, 2024. (Doc. No. 27). The Court denies the request,

19

without prejudice, because the proposed protective order does not comply with the Court’s Local

20

Rules.

21
22

More specifically, the proposed protective order does not define exactly what materials
are protected. Notably, the term “CONFIDENTIAL” is defined as follows:

24

‘CONFIDENTIAL’ Information or Items: information (regardless
of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that
qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).

25

(Doc. No. 27 at ¶ 2.2). Similarly, “PROTECTED MATERIAL” is defined as “any Disclosure or

26

Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.’” (Id. at ¶ 2.13). Such language is

27

too broad and not compliant with the local rules. Specifically, Eastern District of California

28

Local Rule 141.1(c) requires that every proposed protective order contain the following:

23

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.”
(paragraph breaks omitted.)

2
3
4
5
6

Eastern District of California Local Rule 141.1(c) (emphasis added).
The proposed protective order fails to comply with Local Rule 141.1(c). The parties have

7
8

included a catchall description of “Confidential Information of Items.” The Court cannot glean

9

from this catchall description “the types of information” or “nature of the information” sought to

10

be protected under Local Rule 141.1(c)(1). Further, the parties also have not made a showing of

11

particularized need for protection as to each category or explained why a court order is necessary,

12

as opposed to a private agreement between the parties. Id.

13

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

14

The parties’ request for approval of the proposed stipulated protective order (Doc. No. 27)

15

is DENIED, without prejudice, to refiling a stipulated protective order that complies with Local

16

Rule 141.1(c).

17
18
19

Dated:

November 22, 2024
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2