Capelli et al v. Brinks Incorporated

Filing 40

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 04/14/11 ORDERING that the parties' 39 Stipulation and Proposed Order is NOT approved, but without prejudice to the refiling of a sufficient proposed stipulated protective order. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ROBERT CAPELLI and CARLA CAPELLI,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiffs,

No. 2:09-cv-03469-MCE-KJN

v.
BRINK’S INCORPORATED,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

15
16

Presently before the court is the parties’ “Stipulation and [Proposed] Protective

17

Order Regarding Confidential Information” which seeks an order limiting the use and

18

dissemination of “trade secrets and other” information that the parties seek to designate as

19

“confidential.” (Dkt. No. 39.) The undersigned will not approve the proposed stipulated

20

protective order as drafted because it does not conform to the requirements of Eastern District

21

Local Rule 141.1.

22
23
24

This court’s Local Rule 141.1(c) provides:
(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:

25
26

(1) A description of the types of information eligible for
protection under the order, with the description provided in
1

1

general terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the information
(e.g., customer list, formula for soda, diary of a troubled child);

2
(2) A showing of particularized need for protection as to each
category of information proposed to be covered by the order; and

3
4

(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.

5
6

E.D. Local Rule 141.1(c). The parties’ “Stipulation and [Proposed] Protective Order Regarding

7

Confidential Information” does not make the showing required by subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2) of

8

Local Rule 141.1, and more importantly, it does not contain any provision addressing “why the

9

need for protection should be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement

10

between or among the parties.” E.D. Local Rule 141.1(c)(3). Additionally, the undersigned is not

11

inclined to approve a “Stipulation and [Proposed] Protective Order Regarding Confidential

12

Information” that might require this court to retain jurisdiction regarding the proposed

13

confidential information after the termination of this action, as paragraph 8 of the stipulation may

14

envision.

15

Accordingly, the undersigned will not approve the “Stipulation and [Proposed]

16

Protective Order Regarding Confidential Information” as proposed. However, the parties may

17

either enter into a private agreement or file a proposed stipulated protective order that meets all of

18

the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s Local Rules.

19

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulated

20

Protective Order is not approved, but without prejudice to the refiling of a sufficient proposed

21

stipulated protective order.

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 14, 2011
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
2