Nelson v. Wastequip Manufacturing Company, LLC

Filing 12

PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/26/2017. (Michel, G.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIKE NELSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:16-cv-0561 JAM AC v. PROTECTIVE ORDER WASTEQUIP MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC, et al., Defendants. 16 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18  Defendant’s Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 11), is 19 GRANTED; and 20  The parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 11, Exh. A), is APPROVED and 21 INCORPORATED herein. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 23 1. Requests to seal documents shall be made by motion before the same judge who will 24 decide the matter related to that request to seal. 25 2. The designation of documents (including transcripts of testimony) as confidential pursuant 26 to this order does not automatically entitle the parties to file such a document with the 27 court under seal. Parties are advised that any request to seal documents in this district is 28 1 1 governed by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 141. In brief, Local Rule 141 provides that 2 documents may only be sealed by a written order of the court after a specific request to 3 seal has been made. Local Rule 141(a). However, a mere request to seal is not enough 4 under the local rules. In particular, Local Rule 141(b) requires that “[t]he ‘Request to Seal 5 Documents’ shall set forth the statutory or other authority for sealing, the requested 6 duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to be permitted access to the 7 document, and all relevant information.” Local Rule 141(b) (emphasis added). 8 3. 9 A request to seal material must normally meet the high threshold of showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy; however, where the material is, at most, 10 “tangentially related” to the merits of a case, the request to seal may be granted on a 11 showing of “good cause.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 12 1096-1102 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 38 (2016); Kamakana v. City and County of 13 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006). 14 4. Nothing in this order shall limit the testimony of parties or non-parties, or the use of 15 certain documents, at any court hearing or trial – such determinations will only be made 16 by the court at the hearing or trial, or upon an appropriate motion. 17 5. With respect to motions regarding any disputes concerning the stipulated protective order 18 which the parties cannot informally resolve, including any disputes regarding 19 inadvertently produced materials under Fed. R. Evid. 502, the parties shall follow the 20 procedures outlined in Local Rule 251. Absent a showing of good cause, the court will 21 not hear discovery disputes on an ex parte basis or on shortened time. 22 6. The parties may not modify the terms of this Protective Order without the court’s 23 approval. If the parties agree to a potential modification, they shall submit a stipulation 24 and proposed order for the court’s consideration. 25 7. 26 27 28 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. 11, Exh. A) that is in conflict with anything in this order is hereby DISAPPROVED. This includes the stipulation’s 2 1 reference at ¶ 6.3 to “Civil Local Rule 230.” Motions challenging the confidentiality 2 designation, like other discovery motions, shall be brought under Local Rule 251. 3 DATED: January 26, 2017 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?