Zuniga v. Trans Union, LLC et al

Filing 33

ORDER Granting, in Part, Motion for a Protective Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on September 26, 2024. (Navarro, F)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

KATHERINE L. ZUNIGA,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00673-KES-EPG

ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, MOTION
FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC.

(ECF No. 32)

Defendant.

16
17
18
19

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ joint motion for the Court to approve their
proposed protective order. (ECF No. 32). Upon review, the Court will grant the motion in part.
The Court finds the proposed protective order acceptable in most respects. However, the

20

Court notes that the parties define the term ‘“confidential’ information or items” to mean

21

“information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that

22

qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the

23

Good Cause Statement.” (ECF No. 32-1, p. 3).

24

Such an expansive definition improperly allows the parties to deem information

25

confidential so long as they themselves believe that it qualifies for protection and without ever

26

disclosing the types of information at issue under Local Rule 141.1(c)(1), which requires “[a]

27

description of the types of information eligible for protection under the order, with the description

28

provided in general terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the information (e.g., customer list,
1

1

formula for soda, diary of a troubled child).” However, the parties also reference their good cause

2

statement in defining confidential information or items, which provides as follows:

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

This action is likely to involve private, financial information and confidential
records and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical
and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure
and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted.
Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among
other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding
confidential business practices, or commercial information (including information
implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally
unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from
disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common
law. It is extremely important that all of this information remain protected and not
be readily available due to the dangers of theft, fraud, and unfair advantage in the
marketplace.
(Id. at 2-3).
The Court will limit the parties’ definition of confidential information or items to that
more specifically described above, e.g., private, financial information, and confidential records.
Additionally, the Court notes that “a protective order may not bind the Court or its
personnel.” Rangel v. Forest River, Inc., No. EDCV 17-0613 JFW (SS), 2017 WL 2825922, at *2
(C.D. Cal. June 29, 2017). Thus, to the extent that the protective order conflicts with the Court’s
established practices or Rules, e.g., such as by allowing the parties to bypass the Court’s informal
discovery-dispute-resolution process, the Court’s established practices or Rules will govern. (See

18
ECF No. 32-1, p. 7; ECF No. 31, pp. 4-5 (noting procedures regarding informal discovery
19
20
21
22

conferences and discovery motions); the Court’s Standard Procedures (same), available on the
Court’s website).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ motion for a protective order (ECF No.
32) is granted, in part, as revised above.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 26, 2024

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3