Hussein v. K2M, Inc.

Filing 14

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/2/2017 DECLINING TO ADOPT the 13 Stipulation and Proposed Protective Order without prejudice. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NASIR HUSSEIN,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.

No. 2:16-cv-01446-KJM-EFB
ORDER

K2M, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
DOES 1–20 inclusive,
Defendants.

17
18

The parties submitted a stipulated protective order on December 2, 2016. ECF

19

No. 13. For the following reasons, the court DENIES without prejudice the parties’ request to

20

adopt the protective order.

21

The court issued its standing order in this case on June 6, 2016. ECF No. 3-1. In a

22

section entitled “Sealing and Protective Orders,” the court made two requirements abundantly

23

clear. Id. at 6. First, a protective order should not purport to bind the court, as “[n]o document

24

will be sealed, nor shall a redacted document be filed, without the prior approval of the court.”

25

Id. Further, any protective order covering the discovery phase “shall not govern the filing of

26

sealed or redacted documents on the public docket.” Id. Second, the burden is on the party

27

seeking seal or redaction. Id. (“The court will only consider requests to seal or redact filed by the

28

proponent of sealing or redaction.”).
1

1

The parties’ stipulation does not comply with the court’s requirements. First, the

2

stipulation repeatedly purports to bind the court regarding the parties’ stipulation. See Stip. 1 (the

3

order “shall govern the use and treatment of documents” produced in the action); id. ¶ 13

4

(“persons bound” includes “all individuals described under ¶ 5.b.i–ix,” which includes the court,

5

its officers, and the jury). Second, the stipulation puts the burden on the party filing the

6

document, rather than on the party seeking a seal or redaction. See id. ¶¶ 6, 8(a).

7

Because the parties’ stipulation violates these two requirements under the court’s

8

standing order, the court DENIES the parties’ request. This order is without prejudice, and the

9

parties may file a stipulated order consistent with the court’s standing order.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 2, 2017

12
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2