AEB Biochemical USA v. Tagliente et al

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 9/26/2024. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

AEB BIOCHEMICAL USA, a California
corporation,

11
12

No. 1:24-cv-00905-KES-SKO
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE STIPULATION FOR
ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER RE:
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14
15

VICTORIA TAGLIENTE, an individual; and
77ECS, LP dba ELITE CONSULTING
SERVICES,

16

(Doc. 23)

Defendants.

17
I.

18
19

INTRODUCTION

On September 25, 2024, the parties filed a request seeking Court approval of their

20

Stipulation and Protective Order. (Doc. 23). The Court has reviewed the proposed stipulated

21

protective order and has determined that, in its current form, it cannot be granted. For the

22

reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties’ request to approve

23

the stipulated protective order.

24
25
26

II.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c), any 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

1

(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.

2
3
4
5
6
7

Local Rule 141.1(c).
The parties’ order, in its current form, does not satisfy Rule 141.

The proposed

8

protective order does not provide an adequate description of the type of information eligible for

9

protection in a way that is sufficient to reveal the nature of the information. (See, e.g., Doc. 23

10

at 3 (defining confidential information as “non-public Discovery Materials that the

11

‘Designating Party’ in good faith believes qualify for protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal

12
13

Rules of Civil Procedure,”); (defining highly confidential” information as “non-public
Discovery Materials that the ‘Designating Party’ in good faith believes contain highly-sensitive

14
15
16

information, the disclosure of which could cause substantial harm to the designating Party or
any other person, including but not limited to trade secrets or confidential financial

17

information.”). At its most descriptive, the proposed protective order extends to trade secrets

18

and “other confidential financial information.” This does not satisfy Local Rule 141.1(c)

19

either, as the order extends to information “including, but not limited to,” trade secrets and

20

financial information, and therefore, the order does not sufficiently identify the types of

21

information eligible for protection.

22
23
24
25

The parties also fail to identify a “particularized need for protection,” and why that “the
need for protection should be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement
between or among the parties.” Without this information, the Court cannot grant the parties’
stipulation (Doc. 23), and it will be denied without prejudice. The parties may re-file a revised

26
27
28

proposed stipulated protective order that complies with Local Rule 141.1(c) and corrects the
deficiencies set forth in this order.

2

1

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

2

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ request for

3

approval of their stipulated protective order (Doc. 23) is DENIED without prejudice subject to

4

renewal of the request.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated:

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto

September 26, 2024

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3