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.)

Download PDF
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

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?