Leonard v. Denny, et al

Filing 157

PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 06/13/18 ORDERING The parties Stipulated Protective Order 151 at 8-12 is APPROVED and INCORPORATED herein. Plaintiffs unopposed motion for protective order 152 is GRANTED and the proposed Protective Order 152 at 6 is APPROVED AND INCORPORATED herein. (See order for further details.) (Plummer, M) Modified on 6/14/2018 (Plummer, M).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID G. LEONARD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:12-cv-0915 TLN AC P

v.

PROTECTIVE ORDER

JIM DENNY, et al.,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff has filed requests for two protective orders. ECF Nos. 151, 152. The parties

18

have stipulated to one of the protective orders1 (ECF No. 151) and the motion for the second

19

protective order (ECF No. 152) is unopposed.

20

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

21

1. The parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 151 at 8-12) is APPROVED and

22

INCORPORATED herein.
2. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for protective order (ECF No. 152) is GRANTED and

23
24

the proposed Protective Order (ECF No. 152 at 6) is APPROVED AND INCORPORATED

25

herein.

26

1

27
28

The court notes that plaintiff has provided a copy of a July 18, 2017 letter from defendants’
counsel that states that they had “proceeded to file [the stipulated protective order] with the
Court.” ECF No. 151 at 5-6. However, the docket reflects that defendants did not file the
stipulated protective order as counsel represented. Defendants have not provided any explanation
1

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

2

1. Requests to seal documents shall be made by motion before the same judge who will

3
4

decide the matter related to that request to seal.
2. The designation of documents (including transcripts of testimony) as confidential

5

pursuant to this order does not automatically entitle the parties to file such a document with the

6

court under seal. Parties are advised that any request to seal documents in this district is governed

7

by Rule 141 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

8

California (Local Rules). In brief, Local Rule 141 provides that documents may only be sealed

9

by a written order of the court after a specific request to seal has been made. L.R. 141(a).

10

However, a mere request to seal is not enough under the Local Rules. In particular, Local Rule

11

141 requires that “[t]he ‘Request to Seal Documents’ shall set forth the statutory or other

12

authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to be

13

permitted access to the document, and all relevant information.” L.R. 141(b) (emphasis added).

14

3. A request to seal material must normally meet the high threshold of showing that

15

“compelling reasons” support secrecy; however, where the material is, at most, “tangentially

16

related” to the merits of a case, the request to seal may be granted on a showing of “good cause.”

17

Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-1102 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,

18

137 S. Ct. 38 (2016); Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th

19

Cir. 2006).

20

4. Nothing in this order shall limit the testimony of parties or non-parties, or the use of

21

certain documents, at any court hearing or trial—such determinations will only be made by the

22

court at the hearing or trial, or upon an appropriate motion.

23

5. With respect to motions regarding any disputes concerning this protective order which

24

the parties cannot informally resolve, including any disputes regarding inadvertently produced

25

materials under Federal Rule of Evidence 502, the parties shall follow the procedures outlined in

26

Local Rule 230(l). Absent a showing of good cause, the court will not hear discovery disputes on

27

an ex parte basis or on shortened time.

28

6. The parties may not modify the terms of this Protective Order without the court’s
2

1

approval. If the parties agree to a potential modification, they shall submit a stipulation

2

and proposed order for the court’s consideration.

3
4
5

7. Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(f), the court will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement
of the terms of this Protective Order after the action is terminated.
8. Any provision in the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 151 at 8-12) or plaintiff’s proposed

6

terms (ECF No. 152 at 6) that is in conflict with anything in this order is hereby

7

DISAPPROVED.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DAED: June 13, 2018

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3