Landes v. Skil Power Tools, et al

Filing 39

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/21/2013 ORDERING that the parties' Proposed Stipulated Protective Order 38 is NOT APPROVED, but without prejudice to the refiling of a revised proposed stipulated protective order that sufficiently addresses the Court's concerns. (Krueger, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WILLIAM LANDES,

11
Plaintiff,
12
13

No. 2:12-cv-1252 MCE KJN

v.
SKIL POWER TOOLS, et al.,

14
Defendants.
15
16

ORDER
/

Presently before the court is the parties’ proposed Stipulated Protective Order,

17

which seeks approval of an order governing the treatment of discovery materials that the parties

18

intend to designate as “Confidential Materials.” (Dkt. No. 38.) At the present time, the

19

undersigned will not approve the proposed stipulated protective order, but will consider a revised

20

proposed stipulated protective order that addresses the court’s concerns identified below.

21

First, certain portions of the proposed stipulated protective order suggest that the

22

marking of material as “Confidential Materials” pursuant to the protective order would

23

automatically result in the sealing of such materials filed with the court. (See e.g. Dkt. No. 38, ¶¶

24

4e, 6.) The sealing of documents is never automatic, and the parties are required to file a request

25

to seal in accordance with the Eastern District Local Rules, including Local Rule 141, and the

26

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The undersigned recommends that the parties consider adding
1

1
2

a provision to that effect in any revised proposed stipulated protective order.
Second, paragraph 15 of the proposed stipulated protective order also appears to

3

outline obligations by the Clerk of Court to return documents filed under seal that may be

4

inconsistent with Local Rule 141. Again, the undersigned recommends that this paragraph be

5

revised to be consistent with Local Rule 141.

6

Finally, the parties are advised that the undersigned is strongly disinclined, absent

7

some compelling reason, to approve any provision that creates retained jurisdiction over a

8

stipulated protective order and related disputes after termination of the action. Local Rule

9

141.1(f) provides: “Once the Clerk has closed an action, unless otherwise ordered, the Court will

10

not retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective order filed in that action.”

11

E.D. Cal. L.R. 141.1(f).

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ proposed stipulated

13

protective order (dkt. no. 38) is NOT APPROVED, but without prejudice to the refiling of a

14

revised proposed stipulated protective order that sufficiently addresses the court’s concerns

15

outlined above.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 21, 2013

18
19
20

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
2