Parker v. Ethosenergy Power Plant Services, LLC, et al.
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:16-cv-0238 WBS DB
ETHOSENERGY POWER PLANT
SERVICES LLC, JOHN WOOD GROUP
PLC, DAVE BLEVINS, an individual, and
DOES 1-20, inclusive,
On May 18, 2017, the parties submitted a proposed stipulated protective order regarding
the use of confidential information for the court’s consideration. (ECF No. 28.) Local Rule
141.1(c), provides that a proposed protective order must include:
(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);
(2) A showing of particularized need for protection as to each
category of information proposed to be covered by the order; and
(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.
Here, the parties’ proposed stipulated protective order fails to address the requirements of
Local Rule 141.1(c). Moreover, although the parties’ proposed stipulated protective order
addresses the filing of documents under seal with respect to the “law,” and the “applicable rules
of court,” the proposed stipulated protective order addresses neither the law nor the court’s Local
Rules. In this regard, the parties are advised that, all documents filed with the court are
presumptively public. See San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103
(9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well-established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a
court order to the contrary, presumptively public.”).
Therefore, documents that are the subject of a protective order may be filed under seal
only if a sealing order is first obtained. See Local Rule 141.1. A party seeking to obtain a sealing
order shall comply with the provisions of Local Rule 141, which sets forth a specific procedure
for seeking a sealing order. After compliance with Local Rule 141, the court will issue an order
granting or denying the request to seal.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ May 18, 2017 request for entry of the
proposed stipulated protective order (ECF No. 28) is denied without prejudice to renewal.
Dated: May 25, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?