Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Manteca Lifestyle Center, LLC

Filing 26

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/20/10 ORDERING that the parties' "Stipulated Protective Order" is not approved. (Becknal, R)

Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Manteca Lifestyle Center, LLC

Doc. 26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Presently before the court is the parties' proposed "Stipulated Protective Order," which seeks an order limiting the use and dissemination of information the parties seek to designate as "Protected Material," "Confidential" or as "Highly Confidential." (Dkt. No. 25.) For the reasons that follow, the undersigned will not approve the proposed stipulated protective 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BEST BUY STORES, L.P., a Virginia limited partnership, No. 2:10-cv-00389 WBS KJN

MANTECA LIFESTYLE CENTER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, ORDER / MANTECA LIFESTYLE CENTER, LLC Counter-Claimant, v. BEST BUY STORES, L.P., Counter-Defendant, /

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

order as drafted. While the court acknowledges the parties' recognition that the protective order does not automatically create an entitlement to file documents under seal, the proposed order does not comply with the court's Local Rules. Local Rule 141.1 provides, in part, that "[e]very proposed protective order shall" contain certain provisions, including "[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." Local Rule 141.1(c). More specifically, Local Rule 141.1(c)(1) mandates that the stipulated protective order describe the types of information eligible for protection under the order, such as, for example, a customer list or formula for soda. Further, the parties are required to show the particularized need for protection as to each category of information proposed to be covered by the order. Local Rule 141.1(c)(2). The parties' proposed stipulated protective order does not contain these required showings. Accordingly, the undersigned will not approve the stipulation as proposed. For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' "Stipulated Protective Order" is not approved. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 20, 2010

_____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2