Parker v. Ethosenergy Power Plant Services, LLC, et al.

Filing 29

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 5/25/17: The parties' May 18, 2017 request for entry of the proposed stipulated protective order 28 is denied without prejudice to renewal. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PHILLIP PARKER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

No. 2:16-cv-0238 WBS DB

v.

ORDER

ETHOSENERGY POWER PLANT
SERVICES LLC, JOHN WOOD GROUP
PLC, DAVE BLEVINS, an individual, and
DOES 1-20, inclusive,

17

Defendants.

18
On May 18, 2017, the parties submitted a proposed stipulated protective order regarding

19
20

the use of confidential information for the court’s consideration. (ECF No. 28.) Local Rule

21

141.1(c), provides that a proposed protective order must include:

22

(1) A description of the types of information eligible for protection
under the order, with the description provided in general terms
sufficient to reveal the nature of the information (e.g., customer list,
formula for soda, diary of a troubled child);

23
24

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

25
26

(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.

27
28

////
1

1

Here, the parties’ proposed stipulated protective order fails to address the requirements of

2

Local Rule 141.1(c). Moreover, although the parties’ proposed stipulated protective order

3

addresses the filing of documents under seal with respect to the “law,” and the “applicable rules

4

of court,” the proposed stipulated protective order addresses neither the law nor the court’s Local

5

Rules. In this regard, the parties are advised that, all documents filed with the court are

6

presumptively public. See San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103

7

(9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well-established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a

8

court order to the contrary, presumptively public.”).

9

Therefore, documents that are the subject of a protective order may be filed under seal

10

only if a sealing order is first obtained. See Local Rule 141.1. A party seeking to obtain a sealing

11

order shall comply with the provisions of Local Rule 141, which sets forth a specific procedure

12

for seeking a sealing order. After compliance with Local Rule 141, the court will issue an order

13

granting or denying the request to seal.

14

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ May 18, 2017 request for entry of the

15

proposed stipulated protective order (ECF No. 28) is denied without prejudice to renewal.

16

Dated: May 25, 2017

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

DLB:6
DB\orders\orders.civil\parker0238.stip.prot.den

25
26
27
28
2