Mayfield v. Orozco, et al.

Filing 126

PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/28/16. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JAMES JOSHUA MAYFIELD, JAMES
ALLISON MAYFIELD, JR. and TERRI
MAYFIELD,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiffs,

No. 2:13-CV-02499 JAM AC

PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.
IVAN OROZCO, SHERIFF SCOTT
JONES, JAMES LEWIS, RICK
PATTISON, COUNTY OF
SACRAMENTO, UNIVERISTY OF
CALIFONRIA DAVIS HEALTH
SYSTEM, DR. GREGORY SOKOLOV,
DR. ROBERT HALES, and Does 1-5,
Defendants.

20
21

The parties’ stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order (ECF No 124), is

22

APPROVED and INCORPORATED herein.

23

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

24

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

25
26

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

27

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

28

court under seal. Parties are advised that any request to seal documents in this district is governed
1

1

by Local Rule 141. In brief, Local Rule 141 provides that documents may only be sealed by a

2

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

3

mere request to seal is not enough under the local rules. In particular, Local Rule 141(b) requires

4

that “[t]he ‘Request to Seal Documents’ shall set forth the statutory or other authority for sealing,

5

the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to be permitted access to the

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-1102 (9th Cir. 2016), petition

11

for cert. filed, ___ U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. March 24, 2016) (No. 15-1211); Kamakana v. City and

12

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006).

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

the parties cannot informally resolve, the parties shall follow the procedures outlined in Local

18

Rule 251. Absent a showing of good cause, the court will not hear discovery disputes on an ex

19

parte basis or on shortened time.

20

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

21

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

22

and proposed order for the court’s consideration.

23
24
25
26

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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 28, 2016

27
28
2